[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Round II -- new language, arch, furth, etc.

From: John Meinel
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Round II -- new language, arch, furth, etc.
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:27:09 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7 (Windows/20040616)

Hash: SHA1

~From what I remember of darcs, there is no repository. When you do a
"checkout" in a sub-dir is the entire archive. So every working copy is
an archive. Which is why doing get, hack, submit works easily. You
already have a local archive to make changes in. I wonder how big the
local working directories get, though.

I may be misunderstanding what is stated here:

"The primary simplifying notion of darcs is that every copy of your
source code is a full repository."

But that's what is sounds like to me.
Later on they mention something about "partial repositories" which don't
include full histories. So maybe an initial "get" is some partial
repository, I'm not really sure. But the standard method is a "full
repository" I have to wonder what the initial download times are.


Miles Bader wrote:

| Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> writes:
|>And scripting (even if somehow everyone got it) would presumably just
|>do all the archive creation, registration, and so on.  darcs wins
|>there, too, because all that stuff isn't just hidden, it happens not
|>to exist.
| I'm not sure what you mean by "happens not to exist" -- does that mean
| that mean that darcs has no separation between archive location and
| archive name?  If true that sounds like a huge lose...
| -Miles
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]