Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Iavor Diatchki wrote:
I use git for a lot of my development... Given the responses though, it sounds like this is a well known problem with darcs with no obvious solution.
Why do you say there is no obvious solution? In fact, Ganesh, representing the Darcs team, responded:
Actually, I would have to agree with Iavor's characterisation here :-) I think he means that there is no obvious solution in terms of how he could change his workflow right now.
1) a darcs rebase command... very much hope to have it in the next darcs release. Simon M has already tried out an experimental version and was quite positive about it...
This will be technically inferior to using "normal" merging, because of the incompatible histories. *However* (as I also said) I do have some hope that darcs rebase can be made better than git rebase by actually being able to track the relationship between the old and new branches and thus allowing other branches made from the old branch to be brought up to date with the new branch. I don't think this really means "higher-order" version control as Iavor suggested - it's more a question of keeping around some information that is available at the time of doing the rebase. I think if this feature does prove possible - and I should know that within a couple of months - then darcs rebase would be quite close in usability terms to a normal git merge. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================