ebiederman(a)lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
As for features at least as of tla 1.1 I do not
believe this to
be the case. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Which features do you find present in tla that you do not see in darcs?
It was mentioned in some of your discussion that darcs
format patches. I am leary of that because it was exactly that
``optimization'' in RCS which made CVS suck at branches.
Well, I certainly agree that RCS/CVS is awful, and I'm sure that its
patch format plays some part in this, but I do not see how that
extrapolates to darcs. Have you read the Theory Of Patches?
For myself I am branch happy.
Me too! I love branches. The hard part is getting people who don't
normally use them to start using them. When they can think of each
branch as a separate checkout/repo[*] I find that novices pick up the
concept of branching almost instantly.
[*] There is no difference between a darcs workspace and repository;
every workspace is implicitly a fully-functional repository from
which you can take checkouts; in fact, this is exactly how you
make a branch.
And I don't think I like the idea of having to
create another copy
of a repository to have a branch.
Why? Hardlinks eliminate the space concerns in most cases, and in the
rest, well, disk is cheap, and human time sure isn't ;)