On 29.11.2004, at 17:28, Johannes Berg wrote:
There's been an extensive thread/review of it on the gnu-arch mailing list, but of course as one of the competitors we (on that mailing list) rather view darcs as a competitor. I've come out of that with the conclusion that while a really nice tool to use, darcs is too much a memory hog for me to use.
I don't see it as such a big issue. It's all in the client side anyway as the server does nothing but transfer the files. That's one reason I like it so much, it's simple and it doesn't require any complicated server setups. I'll just put the tree somewhere accessible with sftp and http and that's it.
That said, here's the obvious: be sure to investigate gnu arch, whether it is as tla or baz (bazaar).
arch was my previous potential alternative, but I never got around feeling it was worth it to switch from CVS. Perhaps baz makes the user interface easier to use, but it still just doesn't feel as pretty and clean as Darcs :)