[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Git? (Was: Team maint update)

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:11 AM, John Goerzen<jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> Darcs is a nice project, and still has some advantages (such as the dead
> simple darcs send), and some fixes in Darcs 2.  But I think that Git is
> becoming the de facto DVCS, and hopefully will unseat Subversion as a
> reigning VCS at some point to.  I think that using a non-distributed VCS
> these days is a terrible waste of effort, so assuming others agree, in
> our community the two main choices we'd have would be Darcs or Git.
> Both are already used extensively in our community, in fact.

For everything but GHC itself (where, in theory, they're migrating to
Git, but, last I heard the trigger hadn't quite been pulled), isn't
darcs still the de-facto standard VCS for the Haskell community? My
impression is also that upstream darcs usage isn't likely to change
(from what I recall, most small Haskell projects are happy with it,
particularly given darcs 2 and other recent improvements).

If my impression is correct, wouldn't it be easier to collaborate with
upstream Haskell development if we were also using darcs? Or are there
advantages to doing debian-haskell maintenance in a VCS separate from
upstream (rather than just a repository separate from upstream)? My
intuition is that it would be easier to share patches with upstream if
we were using darcs, but that's just a gut feeling.

I'll also note that Gentoo Haskell has been using darcs for their
overlay development and they don't seem to have problems with it.

 - Ravi Nanavati

Reply to: