|
From: | John A Meinel |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla |
Date: | Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:12:53 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) |
Mark Stosberg wrote:
On 2004-11-17, John A Meinel <address@hidden> wrote:But really for windows what you want is a gui.Why? At least 'darcs for windows' is really a DOS application from what I've seen. The target audience is still programmers, who should be lessfearful of the command line.I suppose GUIs are more a part of Windows culture than Linux, if that'swhat you are implying.
I was arguing 3 things: 1) tla will run under cygwin, so there is a windows version available. 2) cmd.exe isn't a great shell, so depending on cygwin is okay. They actually made it quite a bit better than command.com, but bash is still far better. 3) the general windows philosophy is to use gui's for things.The main 2 reasons tla doesn't run on windows is that it had a tendency to abuse path names (make them too long) this is what I work on. The second is that it is written as a POSIX application, and windows isn't generally posix compliant. (They use file handles instead of small integers, for instance.)
I can't say why this would be hard with darcs. Though I know last I checked they didn't have pre/post commit hooks, or other such goodies which also let you nice things.pre and post hooks were discussed recently as a feature that darcs users and the author have an interest in. I wouldn't be surprised if theyappear in the short term.Mark
That will be nice to see. I do still wonder why it would be so difficult to get darcs to incorporate patch signing. I'm curious how darcs stores things on the filesystem.
John =:->
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |