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

[Bruce Stephens]

Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

> 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...

There's no distinction between a working tree and an archive, so
there's no need to create an archive.  I don't think it has archive
names, either.  

Presuming I'm understanding the documentation correctly, it lacks the
usual concepts of branches and things.  Versions of code are defined
by what patches they contain, so two versions are closely related if
they contain similar sets of patches, and the nearest common ancestor
of two versions can be formed by set intersection (and that ancestor
may never have existed).  All this requires special properties of the
patches, so they have to be partly human generated, which is
presumably an inconvenience.