>> I much prefer the way Darcs does it (i.e., prompt you for which
>> changes you want to include in this particular commit).
>
> I prefer the GUI, actually. Much easier to pick out various commits to
> commit.

I will admit, a GUI is probably a superior interface for doing this. 
(And I'm not aware of anyone having built a GUI for Darcs.)

>>>> not sure what you mean by "Darcs needs you to do that all in one step".
>>>
>>> I mean that gathering up the changes and committing them sounds like a
>>> single step in Darcs.
>>
>> A single interactive step, yes.
>
> Which means you can't (for example) stop in the middle when you realize
> you forgot to make one of the 30 changes you want to commit to fix
> something in particular. You have to start over.

True enough. It would be nice if you could make Darcs remember which 
changes you selected last time around. (Then again, some of those 
changes might no longer exist next time you run Darcs...)

>> Except that usually 200 people will be editing 200 different parts of the
>> repository.
>
> And if that's the case in git, then you have no trouble merging things
> when and as you want them.

You still have to manually make Git combine all 200 changes into one 
version, and then commit that. It just seems like an undless cycle of 
merges trying to keep everything straight, generating an ever more 
tangled history behind it.

>> to do lots of extra work and then record
>> it as a new item of data, which you don't actually need, but that's
>> just hot
>> Git works.
>
> What extra work? If you just want to commit everything you've changed,
> you say "git commit -all" or some such, and away you go. If you want to
> take my changes and update your repository, you say "git pull darren",
> and when you're ready to incorporate my changes into your development,
> you say "git merge darren". It's two steps because you don't want to tie
> "get Darren's changes" to "make sure Darren's changes are all compatible
> with mine."

It's more the conceptual annoyance of having to record every merge 
operation as a new version of the entire repo, even if you only changed 
one line. That seems really clumsy to me.

> Honestly, I'm not sure I see any advantage of Darcs over git.

Likewise, but inverted.

Still, until GHC moves from Darcs to Git, I won't have to actually care, 
so I guess it doesn't really matter.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message