[Haskell-cafe] Why not Darcs?

[Maciej Marcin Piechotka]

On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 16:16 -0700, John Meacham wrote:
> Um, the patch theory is what makes darcs "just work". There is no need
> to understand it any more than you have to know VLSI design to
> understand how your computer works. The end result is that darcs
> repositories don't get corrupted and the order you integrate patches
> doesn't affect things meaning cherrypicking is painless.
> 

While I appriciate the patch theory I don't think darcs fits the
workflow of at least some people

Assume following changes
1. Feature X - file x.hs
2. Feature Y - file y.hs and x.hs
3. Feature Z - file z.hs and x.hs
4. Fix to feature Y (changes x.hs)
5. Fix to feature X (changes x.hs)

Now before pushing I would like to have 3 nice commits. In git I can
rewrite history by single command:

# git rebase -i origin/master

and edit the file to look like

pick 1
fixup 5
pick 2
fixup 4
pick 3

Manually/automatically check everything is ok.

Regards
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20110422/23904f7e/attachment.pgp>