The same friend who wondered about how to share a Git repo over HTTP dared to suggest that “It’s so easy with Hg…”. While I happen to disagree that it’s easier in Hg than Git, I think this flow chart successfully demonstrates that, on this front, Hg and Git both suck ass when compared to Darcs. P.S. Yes, while 100% factual, the graph is also intentionally silly. [Update] After considering it more I think think it probably is easier to share a repo with Hg than Git, but I dislike the fact that it involves mucking about with things outside of the repo.

A flow chart for a friend demonstrating, step by step, how you’d go about using Darcs (or any other distributed version control system) with SVN / CVS. He needs to do it for the most common reasons: it’s a pain to branch and merge with CVS.\ he’d have to coordinate with other departments like QA to get them working off of whatever the current release branch happened to be at the moment and convince them that it was a good idea.

Using Darcs with Subversion / CVS Some of you have gotten the distributed version control religion (If you haven’t, you should read my Best Practices essay) but are stuck with Subversion (or CVS) either because that’s what they use at work or because some part of your deployment systems use it. You may also want to combine them simply because of the power of svn externals which lets you pull in some of your code from constantly updated , Subversion Based, 3rd party repositories.