Andrew Coppin wrote:
Trent W. Buck wrote:
I don't know why, but a lot of people I spoke to seemed to have that impression, and I essentially had to wave changelogs under their face to convince them that darcs was still being worked on *at all*. I had to point out that it was a *release* announcement -- how could a dead project have a new major version?
Perhaps a chirpy journalism major should be writing vapidly up-beat announcement posts, denying even the possibility of problems :-P
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... I was under the impression that Darcs is a revision control system. It controls revisions.
Well Darcs already does that. So... what's to develop? It's not like it's slow or buggy. I can't actually think of any features it doesn't have that I want. So... what now?
Erm, actually it is. Both. Well, at least the slow bit is still quite there in 2.0, though better. The IndempotentMerge problem? I guess it sounds like this is better in 2.0, though not completely fixed. I still laugh when I remember droundy telling me something along the lines of, "No, that is NOT an infinite loop. It will finish in a couple of weeks." <grin> -- John