> I don't understand what justifies Pijul's existence.
The argument basically is: Darcs is better at the fundamentals than git is, and the reason for its lack of popularity is that it implemented those fundamentals inefficiently leading to exponential time use in some cases.
So the justification is that some people want Darcs fundamentals but with the speed of git. Now: if you don't buy that Darcs does anything fundamentally better than git then obviously you also won't allow it as an argument for why Pijul is needed. But it is the argument.
The pijul manual starts with a "Why pijul" that describes why the more complex patch theory is an advantage.
The argument basically is: Darcs is better at the fundamentals than git is, and the reason for its lack of popularity is that it implemented those fundamentals inefficiently leading to exponential time use in some cases.
So the justification is that some people want Darcs fundamentals but with the speed of git. Now: if you don't buy that Darcs does anything fundamentally better than git then obviously you also won't allow it as an argument for why Pijul is needed. But it is the argument.
The pijul manual starts with a "Why pijul" that describes why the more complex patch theory is an advantage.
https://pijul.org/manual/why_pijul.html
it outlines an example "bad merge" scenario where patches theoretic system gets it right and git does not.
https://tahoe-lafs.org/%7Ezooko/badmerge/simple.html