Since we're talking about this, ones is the reasons I dislike for is that it treats the project history just like any other prolix public document, providing tools for modifying it, changing it as you push or pull, etc. I disagree with this, and prefer tools that believe that history should be immutable, like hg and fossil.
Which side, if either, of this does darcs land on?
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 07:28:27PM +0000, Geraldus wrote:
> Hi friends!
>
> I love Haskell very much. So, I'm very interested in using Darcs. Is
> there some documentation explaining diffrences between Darcs and Git. Is
> there something that makes Darcs more robust rathen that Git. Does Darcs
> have some Emacs support (something like `magit`)?
>
> And one other question. Currently, I have no collaborators and use Git
> majorly myself to have version control, e.g. to revert some bad code, to
> have a nice log with code diffs and comments, and etc. But in future I
> will need something like GitHub for collaboration, is there a good solution
> for Darcs' hub already?
Hello Geraldus, I am a happy darcs user. I enjoy its basic philosophy
much more than git one (patches vs. branches [1]); I do feel the
user experience to be much smoother, too.
There are darcs hosting services, one of them being darcs hub [2].
Or you can just upload the repository to your webspace and -presto-
you are ready. I work like this [3] alongside with some barebone
issue tracker [4] and I am pretty happy.
[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theory
[2] http://hub.darcs.net/
[3] http://www.ariis.it/link/repos/
[4] http://www.ariis.it/static/articles/lentil/page.html
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe