Did anyone ever manage to come up with a watertight formalization of Darcs’s patch theory?
Isn’t that what Pijul is trying to do?
Pijul is coming up with a watertight theory of version control, rather than Darcs patch theory.That said, both use patches, so maybe there will be some cross-polination.
Pijul is doing patch theory. They base it on pushouts.
I honestly don’t see how this helps, but they seem to be trying.
I know they are doing a patch theory, but I was trying to mention that there’s nothing there that tries to implement Darc’s theory of patches. I may be adding more confusion than necessary, though.
Camp has been working on a Coq proof of it.
Sounds like a cool project, but it doesn’t seem to be active anymore. The repo hasn’t been updated in two years and the mailing list is full of spam. Have the changes been merged into darcs already?
People still use darcs?
Nope, this release was done purely to give you the opportunity to make this comment.
I’m honestly curious as to why you’d use darcs over a newer system like mercurial or git; anyone care to elaborate as to why?
To this day darcs still has possibly the most user friendly interface to a version control system that I have ever encountered. It’s biggest flaw was always it’s speed and how poorly it scales to larger codebases. But most users don’t have large codebases with years of history accumulated.
For those use cases it’s probably the safest easiest to use DVCS out there with Mercurial a close second.
Maybe they like it? Some people still use svn and cvs. I don’t really understand your incredulity, people do lots of things that probably don’t align with your sense of aesthetics.
Because darcs is fundamentally different. git, mercurial and SVN are all DAG-based, which has quite a number of issues.