Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

dhruva writes:

 > feature I consider very good. Ability to run a git server for existing
 > cvs clients. Though this might be contradictory to dVCS concepts (not
 > too sure though)

CVS would be a reasonably useful alternative protocol for update-only
workspaces except for the fact that many firewalls block port 2401.

 > On 1/24/08, Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> wrote:

 > > That's also true of mercurial, monotone, darcs and git, depending of
 > > how you do define "work now".

Darcs does not "work now" any platform if in "work" you include "cheap
branches".  Darcs does not "work now" on any platform, if in "work"
you include "reliably delivers pushes and pulls in time similar to
CVS."  Posts by Darcs users (some of them long-timers) that they feel
forced to abandon Darcs or to move mission-critical repos to a
different VCS are a common occurrance.

Darcs 2, now in very early beta, addresses the first concern very well
according to benchmarks published on the developers list.  Similarly,
it partially addresses the second concern based on those benchmarks.
However, it is not clear that the "exponential-time merge" problem is
being addressed, and there is no real-world experience with Darcs 2
yet (it's not even self-hosting).

I would guess that in the time frame that Emacs is making the choice,
we'll see both Darcs 2 and GHC (the Glasgow Haskell Compiler used to
build Darcs) move their repos to Darcs 2.  So don't rule Darcs out.