Version 16 (modified by igloo, 9 years ago) (diff)


Darcs retrospective, and the future

GHC has been using darcs for version control since the beginning of 2006. It has not been all plain sailing, so in this page we will record our experiences with darcs, and attempt to objectively evaluate whether we would be better off with a different version control system. In the event that we do switch, we need to track exactly what needs to change, so this page will also list those dependencies.

Problems we currently experience with darcs

  • Conflicts and merging. This is the biggest problem we encounter, and is also the #1 priority for Darcs development. Any non-trivial branch is affected, and essentially the workaround is to discard the history from the branch when merging, and use ordinary diff/patch tools. Keeping history is possible, but impractical for branches with more than a few patches.
  • Speed. many operations are impractical (annotate, darcs changes <file>), and many operations just take "too long" (i.e. long enough that you go and do something else rather than wait for it to finish, which incurs a context-switch cost). We can't use Trac's darcs integration or darcsweb, for example, because both rely on invoking darcs changes <file> (for that matter, that's not completely true for the trac darcs plugin as it does not execute that command on a per-file basis, but rather it loads and caches into its own database the result of darcs changes -v on the "not-yet-loaded" changesets, visiting every patch in the repository just once. It caches also the actual content of each file touched by any browsed changeset, to compute the unidiff.).
  • bugs: we run into darcs bugs other than the conflict/merging bug on a regular basis.
  • user interface issues: e.g. in a conflict there's no way to tell which two patches are conflicting with each other(!)
  • Windows support: is quite flaky still. (well, it's certainly better than it used to be, and at least some Windows users don't consider it to be bad).

Current status

On the 23rd July 2008 an IRC meeting on the #ghc channel decided to make a serious effort to replace Darcs, due to all the problems described above. The logs of that meeting are available in full at, but the main conclusions were:

  • The GHC developers have sufficient problems with Darcs that a change would be beneficial

  • We want to stick with distributed version control, and have a widely-used and well-supported system, so Mercurial and Git are the only real contenders
  • Mercurial and Git and percived as being mostly feature-and-performance comparable, although git is more popular
  • More investigation of the Mercurial option for GHC is needed, especially in light of reported poor support for Windows with Git. This work is ongoing

Important workflows

ToDo. Compare workflows using darcs with the same workflow in other systems.

Cherry-picking patches

This is how we maintain the stable GHC branch. Particular fixes are pulled from the HEAD. When the desired patches don't depend on undesired patches, darcs takes care of this automatically, as demonstrated below. Otherwise, with darcs, the patch has to be merged by hand.

# Make a repo with a single file with lines 1,3,5,7 in

mkdir repo1
cd repo1
darcs init
printf 'Line1\nLine3\nLine5\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all --look-for-adds -m patch1 -A
cd ..

# Check out 2 copies of the repo

darcs get repo1 repo2
darcs get repo1 repo3

# Add a patch that adds lines 2 and 6, then another that adds line 4

cd repo1
printf 'Line1\nLine2\nLine3\nLine5\nLine6\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all -m patch2
printf 'Line1\nLine2\nLine3\nLine4\nLine5\nLine6\nLine7\n' > file
darcs record --all -m patch3

# Pull the line 4 patch, but not the lines 2 and 6 patch, into the
# other repos non-interactively and interactively

cd ../repo2
darcs pull --all --patches patch3
cd ../repo3
darcs pull 

# repo2's and repo3's file now contains lines 1,3,4,5,7

Cherry-picking during record

In this example, we want to record just the fixes we have made, and not the debugging prints. We want something similar for:

  • reverting just the debugging prints, and not the fixes
  • reverting the parts of a change you are working on that turned out not to be right
  • in the middle of doing a large change, discovering a little bug and wanting to fix and record it
# Make a repo with a single file with lines 1,3,5,7,9 in

mkdir repo1
cd repo1
darcs init
printf 'Line1\nLine3\nLine5\nLine7\nLine9\n' > file
darcs record --all --look-for-adds -m patch1 -A

# Now we fix a bug, and in the process add some debugging prints.

printf 'Line1\nFix2\nLine3\nDebug4\nLine5\nFix6\nLine7\nDebug8\nLine9\n' > file

# We want to record our fix, but not the debugging prints.

darcs rec -m the_fix

# Get rid of the debug prints

darcs revert -a

# Now file contains lines 1,2,3,5,6,7,9

Darcs alternatives still in the running



  • Speed comparable to Git
  • Some operations become feasible (bisect, annotate)
  • Many helper tools
  • Good Windows support
  • HTTP and SSH sync possible, but unknown how this compares to Git native protocol sync speed


  • Similar problems with bisect support as Git
  • (Unknown: suitability of command set?)



  • Speed
  • Very similar workflow possible: git add --patch, git cherry-pick, and others
  • Some operations become feasible (bisect, annotate)
  • Many helper tools


  • Complex command set? (Though, it should be possible to find replacements for the darcs commands and be happy.)
  • Lack of good Windows support?
  • bisect support would require git modules to also pick the correct version of libraries. Keeping this in sync is not easy, atm.
  • uses its own protocol for network transmission (http works but is slower, however, other hosting services are available, e.g., github)

Eliminated alternatives



  • Fairly fast
  • Portable (as portable as python, anyhow)
  • Merging works correctly based on closest-common-ancestor
  • Tracking of renamed files / directories merges correctly
  • 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


  • 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).

Reason for elimination: lack of uptake and hence more risk of Bzr becoming unmaintained.


Advantages to staying with darcs:

  • Community consistency: essentially the Haskell community has standardised on darcs, so it would be an extra barrier for contributors if they had to learn another VC system.
  • Merging, when it works, is done right in darcs.

Disadvantages to staying with darcs:

  • Uncertain future: no critical mass of hackers/maintainers. The technical basis is not well enough understood by enough people.

Reason for elimination: persistent performance and algorithmic problems, see above.

Dependencies on darcs

The following is intended to be a complete list of the things that would need to change if we were to switch away from darcs, in addition to the conversion of the repository itself, which I am assuming can be automatically converted using available tools.

The following code/scripts would need to be adapted or replaced:

  • The darcs-all script
  • The push-all script
  • The aclocal.m4 code that attempts to determine the source tree date
  • .darcs-boring
  • The buildbot scripts
  • checkin email script: /home/darcs/bin/
  • Trac integration (the GHC Trac does not currently integrate with darcs, however)
  • darcsweb (use whatever alternative is available)

The following documentation would need to change:

External references


Attachments (2)

Download all attachments as: .zip