hg, git, fossil, ...

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Lele Gaifax <lele at metapensiero.it>:

> Well, even conceding the file specialty, and more than that acknowledging
> the extraordinary beauty of the darcs model, it too considers a patch
> spanning several files as an atomic operation.

Yes. Darcs wants to get it right.

> So, even if it makes very very easy to "cherry-pick" a given
> changeset, it still insist in carrying in all the changes it involves:
> in your scenario, you'd still need to withdraw the (unwanted)
> modifications applied to the other files, recording an additional
> changeset with the reverts.

Darcs would probably be perfect, conceptually. According to rumors (the
Wikipedia article, for example), that rigor can come with a severe
performance penalty.

So we have two approximations of the Darcs ideal: file-level and
repo-level. The repo-level approximation is over-protective, the
file-level approximation is under-protective. I prefer the slight
under-protection to over-protection. (I guess that's I'm using Python in
the first place.)


Marko