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

[Jan Hudec]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 09:38:00 +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> 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.

I don't think they need to be specialy generated. Making "clean"
changesets makes merging easier and the whole things behave better (you
can't do cherry-picking if the patches depend on each other), but that's
true for arch too. All the patch algebra is generic, though, and holds
for any patches.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature