|
From: | John A Meinel |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla |
Date: | Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:46:10 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) |
John Goerzen wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 02:12:21PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
[...]
1) How do you tell darcs that you want the most recent version of the source tree, with the current modifications then applied (meaning the archive is more important than my changes. This updates to the latest archive version, and then applies my changes.)tla updateNo direct equivolent here (see darcs pull), but otoh, I can never think of an instance where tla update has been better for me than tla replay, and also can't really think of one where it would be.
I've done some changes, found out someone else might have done something similar, etc. I generally use replay myself. You could fake an update with 'tla undo; tla replay; tla redo' that's basically what it does, only I think it is *slightly* smarter.
2) How do you state that my changes are more important. (This applies each missing patch until one fails.)tla replaydarcs pull3) How do you say. Well, I've done all these changes on a branch, and now I'm ready to commit it to the main branch as one logical merge.tla star-mergedarcs pull
My understanding was that this pulls each change as a separate entity. Does it make a record such that all the changes can be easily pulled in later?
By your response darcs push records each one individually, and darcs pull records a meta patch.
4) Each change I just did should be entered into the main branch as an individual change set.tla pure-merge (theoretical)darcs pushI realize tla is not very simple, but some of that is because it lets you do complicated things. I completely agree with you that the basicI'm not sure tla really permits things that darcs dosen't. Can you give an example?having darcs take 1 hour to commit a change is plenty of time for me to figure out what the difference is between update/replay, and then I don't have to worry about it again.To make it clear, that is a bug in darcs that needs to be fixed.
Is this explicitly a bug, or is it something where because of it's basic patch-algebra design it is stuck with this.
-- John
I also happen to prefer having a semi-centralized repository, because then if I wipe my working dir, I know I haven't lost anything.
I'm guessing baz could probably make things about as simple as darcs, though. With the caveat that you have to be aware of a repository versus just working trees.
John =:->
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |