[closer-devel] CVS or Darcs?

[Marco Baringer]

Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> writes:

> Does anyone of you have a strong opinion in this regard? Currently, I
> have a slight tendency towards Darcs, but both options would probably
> be fine for me.

if the choices are just CVS and darcs i would *strongly* urgue you to
use darcs. reasons:

1) darcs tracks changes by 'patch' and not 'file edit' (two edits (or
   moves or whatever) to different files are treated as a single
   entity by darcs).

2) darcs is very simple to setup (this is not such a big deal for the
   core develpors of large projects but makes a world of difference
   for people who contribute rarely).

3) darcs can figure out the dependncy of patches and will not let you
   apply a patch out of order.

4) darcs deals very well with 'cherry picking' (its only real
   competitore in this regard is monotone). this makes collecting
   patches from other developers much easier, for example: you can
   grab one patch from a contributor today and grab another one a wek
   from now without grabbing the intermediate patches. if in a month
   you want to merge in all the remaining patches you can do that
   without problems.

personalyl i prefer arch's structure (using darcs feels like
navigating in a sea of patches all alike) though its interface is
cryptic and difficult to use (even after a year of constant use).

p.s. - i was a long time CVS user before moving over to arch. I've
been using darcs for only the last few months.

-- 
-Marco
Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget the perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything.
That's how the light gets in.
	-Leonard Cohen