we cannot move to darcs before 2 10

The timing doesn't matter a whit to me personally

And, yes, I agree that doing it post-2 10 makes the most sense overall [A reminder here: be sure to drop these plans into the roadmap, Justin The more you start using that file as a working document rather than just an external-communications afterthought, the easier it'll make things in the long run for folks like me!]

I gotta say that I'll miss my CVS GUI, however Right now I'm using TortoiseCVS ( http://tortoisecvs org/ ), and all I have to do is right-click a file (or multiple files) in the appropriate Windows folder, select "CVS commit" from the regular ol' context menu, type a comment, and hit enter The only way it could be easier is if you came over to my place and did it for me

So as far as I'm concerned, anything that's command-line-only is a step backwards usability-wise Still, I do support the darcs changeover, because CVS's merging and renaming problems aren't doing anyone any good, and even I'm noticing it's quickly becoming the weakest link in the overall open-source-ness of things I just hope you're right about darcs being "the Mac/Dada Mail [er, mac-daddy?] of source control," Mark, becasue I'm a very lazy person :-)

could you set up a darcs whatchamacallit so I can start playing around?

JS: Leaving this (or a similar) testing area up for others to muck about with would be appreciated also

If darcs development is slightly different than this basically standard way of using CVS branches, please let me know what to expect :)

According to the second para of the manual, "every copy of your source code is a full repository This is dramatically different from CVS, in which the normal usage is for there to be one central repository from which source code will be checked out "

So, yeah, looks like there's going to be quite a learning curve here Better start reading up now

http://www darcs net/manual/