"Andrew O. Shadoura" <bugzilla@tut.by> writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, 31 May 2011 12:21:26 +0200 > Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> wrote: > > Do you really doubt that Darcs’s general user interface is more > > intuitive than others (especially compared to git)? Darcs might have > > its shortcomings, but its UI is always pointed out as a plus > > Well, I really dislike git's interface, but darcs appears to be > completely counter-intuitive to me. Possibly, I have used it too > little, or I'm used to Mercurial too much, don't know. When people talk about how much they like the Darcs UI, and I ask for details, the benefit they unfailingly point out (I would love to know of other UI benefits if they exist) is the ‘darcs record’ UI. That was indeed a big advantage when none of the major DVCSen had anything like it. But now all of them do, in one form or another. I find the idea of commiting *parts* of one's working tree files, such that the commit will result in a working tree state that never existed on your filesystem (and therefore one that you cannot have tested) is a huge step back toward the bad old days of Subversion and/or CVS. I much prefer the “shelve” style: temporarily put selected hunks aside by choosing them interactively, and get the working tree in a state that's ready to be tested and committed. After that, bring all the shelved changes back and continue hacking. -- \ “Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's | _o__) hard to avoid second-hand smoke.” —Michael Tiemann | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpainmsXewop.pgp
Description: PGP signature