On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 09:40:03PM -0000, Shane Clintberg wrote:

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

That sounds sensible to me, too

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

TortoiseCVS is nice, and I would like to see that kind of tool appear for darcs

I'll soon try to provide some details so those who are interested in can play with darcs in a non-committal way and use that experience to confirm whether you want to move that direction

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/

Ha :)

darcs is different, but not hard First, it doesn't use any of the revision numbers that CVS does, so you don't have remember that branch happend with "1 1 3 1" of a file

Although there is a way to refer precisely to patches, usually you can just use snippets of the human-friendly patch name, and darcs will do the right thing, selecting the most recent patch that matched that string

There is also nothing special to learn about branching as there is in CVS

To communicate with the central repository, you use:

darcs pull and darcs push

To communicate with any other branch, you use: darcs pull and darcs pull as well The only difference is that you have to tell it which branch to talk to

I'll send some more specific examples later

Mark