>> The problem Git seems to have is that it uses heads to keep track of
>> things.
>> Delete the head and the corresponding commit drops off the face of the
>> Earth.
>
> Yes. That's why you shouldn't do that.

It's also why having sub-repos might be tricky. Much simpler if you 
don't need to keep updating pointers.

> On the other hand, if you work on something and decide it wasn't a good
> idea, you can delete the branch and no harm no done. Darcs apparently
> requires you to copy the entire repository before you even *start*
> making changes if you want to recover.

What craziness are you speaking? If you want to go back to an older 
version, you just say "take me back to an older version please". If you 
don't want changes you've made, you either record commits reverting 
them, or you just delete them from the history outright. That's kind of 
the whole point of version control, distributed or not.

>> Darcs manages a set [as in set theory] of changes. You don't need to keep
>> updating a "pointer" to point to the latest one or anything. I'd be
>> surprised if no over VCS has thought of this.
>
> But that's exactly why you need to start a new repository if you want a
> new branch. If you clone a repository in Darcs, make a bunch of changes,
> then accidentally delete the repository, you're in even worse shape than
> if you delete a branch in git.

Well, yes, if you delete all your work, you have a problem. This isn't 
unique to Darcs. I'm not seeing what your point is...

Post a reply to this message