[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gub progress
From: |
Johannes Schindelin |
Subject: |
Re: gub progress |
Date: |
Sun, 4 Jun 2006 16:11:53 +0200 (CEST) |
Hi,
On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Pedro Kröger wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Also, if you want to ditch cvs, you always leave somebody behind. For
> > example, from what I understand, Han-Wen likes darcs very much... and I
> > know plenty people (me included) who don't like it. Same goes for every
> > version control system, but at least people are _used_ to cvs.
>
> Could you tell why you don't like darcs? I'm just curious to hear. I've
> been using darcs for some time but I'm considering to try git as well.
<disclaimer>I am not trying to offend anybody. Just stating my opinions
here, so no need to get mad at me, although you are free to call me an
idiot.</disclaimer
I don't like darcs for several reasons:
- I need to install a completely new compiler to patch darcs (Haskell
does not bother me as much; I could learn it).
- the whole bruhaha about the "theory of patches" and that it is connected
with some concepts from quantum mechanics is _soooo_ seagull consultant.
It has written BS all over it.
- It is _slow_. I had the pleasure of having to work with tailor, which is
a program to convert between different Version Control formats, and which
is written in darcs. My experience is that git beats it any time of the
day.
- It is buggy. When trying to convert the repository of tailor itself with
tailor into git format, I hit a bug in darcs early on.
- It does not seem to focus on version control, but on changing the order
of patches. Thus, it is more similar to quilt than to a version control
system.
- It lacks a nice GUI where I can see what happened in a particular
branch. In fact, I am not quite sure that you actually get the whole
history, what with all the patch reordering.
- The repository format itself is fragile, just as cvs'. It is based on
patches, so if there is one single patch corrupt, you loose the history
from then on.
- AFAIK darcs has not even started to handle complicated merges
gracefully. In contrast, git handles modifications in one branch, and a
rename in the other quite well.
- git makes it _really_ easy to access older version without checking them
out. For example, I can get the differences in lily/music.cc between
version 1.3.108 and 2.9.7 with "git diff lilypond_1_3_108:lily/music.cc
lilypond_2_9_7:lily/music.cc".
If I thought long and hard, I could probably come up with more reasons I
don't like darcs, but I think you got an idea.
BTW, the git repository I set up, tracking lilypond's cvs, is still
online. Containing all history of the cvs repository, the first download
is about 55MB. Feel free to play with it.
Ciao,
Dscho
Message not available