lols when people vocalise it as "Dark"
darcs and dark don't seem to be substantially different but in practice they are
SubStack
wonders
what cats think of darcs
SubStack
has
only used darcs to fetch haskell projects, but it seemed to work well enough
finds it interesting that darcs was first released in 2003 and he only first heard of it when he started learning haskell
@Kent
has
for the record tried mercurial.
@Kent
has
decided git is superior
by "tried" I mean "wanted to die from using it for a good 9 months"
"D-archs"
perhaps even "dee-arcks"
darcs ways of doing things look interesting, so I was going to try it, but people told me that it is slow beyond usability, so I let it be.
darcs is nice, but I got used to mercurial
also tried git, but there are some operations in git that look counter-intuitive to me and I found Mercurial was much better documented
it's also relatively easy to find out what's it doing under the hood. But really both git and mercurial have a lot of momentum now
sourceforge added support for both, and Bazaar, but no Darcs at least yet
Mercurial plugs nicely to SVN, and there are many existing SVN repositories including all in Google code
Mercurials biggest problem is its named branches suck. And put in the hands of ametures it makes things go bang.
had people constantly merging all branches regardless of instructions not to
put this way, my experience inspired these 2 questions. stackoverflow.com/questi...
The "no scm" question came out when somebody developed a major side project without one!