More on version management...

[Graham Klyne]

Isaac,

You paint a fairly compelling picture.  I think that the big advantage of 
darcs that you describe is that it can merge changes from repository to 
repository, rather than just from sandbox to repository.  That seems useful 
to me, because I do use a locally-managed respository for all my work... 
it's the way I do backups.

At 13:21 19/03/04 -0500, Isaac Jones wrote:
>By the way, I feel that the cost of learning a new way of doing
>version control is over-hyped.  For one thing, you can use arch just
>like CVS and still give your users the distributed advantages.  For
>another thing, it's just not that hard to learn.  My company hired a
>new guy the other day, and he read the arch tutorial one morning and
>that was all he needed.

Well, maybe the fear of learning curve is because CVS is quite opaque in 
some respects.  Your description of Darcs made it seem easy enough.  Though 
there is still the complexity of setting up a local repository to consider.

Other questions I have:
- ease of displaying differences between working copy and repository?
- GUI front-end for exploring repository?
- repository-hosting requirements?
- ease of setting up secure connections to a remote repository?
- support for CVS-like change-logs, etc ($Id: $, $Log: $, etc.)?

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact