... | ... | @@ -403,6 +403,7 @@ Disadvantages: |
|
|
|
|
|
- Similar problems with bisect support as Git
|
|
|
- (Unknown: suitability of command set?)
|
|
|
- No rebase, though this is being added as part of the Summer of Code
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Darcs vs Mercurial Overview
|
|
|
|
... | ... | @@ -532,9 +533,10 @@ Disadvantages: |
|
|
Advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Fairly fast
|
|
|
- Portable (as portable as python, anyhow)
|
|
|
- Allows checkout without any history
|
|
|
- Portable (as portable as python, anyhow), works on Windows
|
|
|
- Merging works correctly based on closest-common-ancestor
|
|
|
- Tracking of renamed files / directories merges correctly
|
|
|
- Tracking of renamed files / directories merges correctly (better even than Mercurial)
|
|
|
- Revisions form a DAG (more like a tree with merge-points) rather than patchsets
|
|
|
- Supports convenient "centralised-style" commit-remote-by-default as well as "distributed-style" commit-local-by-default. Just 'bind' or 'unbind' your branch whenever you want.
|
|
|
- Simple clear UI
|
... | ... | @@ -545,6 +547,7 @@ Disadvantages |
|
|
- Revisions form a DAG (more like a tree with merge-points) rather than patchsets (this is a subjective point, which is why it's in both lists. Which model do you believe in?)
|
|
|
- Cherry-picking isn't very "native" to the data model.
|
|
|
- UI is rather different from darcs (which current contributors are used to).
|
|
|
- No rebase
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Eliminated alternatives
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |