aready done....

[ikiwiki.git] / doc / about_rcs_backends.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn b/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn
index 8d6c00f9f159a93d28fad109fa10295655318c78..c20fa5cc3195165c8a81faaa2797dee5be3bcffd 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn
+++ b/doc/about_rcs_backends.mdwn
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ see [[commit-internals]].
 
 You browse and web-edit the wiki on W.
 
+W "belongs" to ikiwiki and should not be edited directly.
+
 
 ## [darcs](http://darcs.net/) (not yet included)
 
@@ -103,7 +105,17 @@ by Ikiwiki.
 This approach might be applicable to other distributed VCSs as well, although they're not as oriented
 towards transmitting changes with standalone patch bundles (often by email) as darcs is.
 
-> The mercurial plugin seems to just use one repo and edit it directly - is there some reason that's okay there but not for darcs? I agree with tuomov that having just the one repo would be preferable; the point of a dvcs is that there's no difference between one repo and another. I've got a darcs.pm based on mercurial.pm, that's almost usable... --bma
+> The mercurial plugin seems to just use one repo and edit it directly - is
+> there some reason that's okay there but not for darcs? I agree with tuomov
+> that having just the one repo would be preferable; the point of a dvcs is
+> that there's no difference between one repo and another. I've got a
+> darcs.pm based on mercurial.pm, that's almost usable... --bma
+
+>> IMHO it comes down to whatever works well for a given RCS. Seems like
+>> the darcs approach _could_ be done with most any distributed system, but
+>> it might be overkill for some (or all?) While there is the incomplete darcs
+>> plugin in the [[patchqueue]], if you submit one that's complete, I will
+>> probably accept it into ikiwiki.. --[[Joey]]
 
 ## [[Git]]