I just took a brief look at the Darcs web site and the Cogito web site. 
Given that Darcs is written in Haskell, I'd be inclined to blow it off 
out of hand, since I don't know Haskell.

Cogito claims to be a front-end to git. I don't know much about git. I 
think it's what the Linux kernel developers use for their source tree as 
a replacement for what they used to use, the non-free bitkeeper.

For most purposes, the "big two" open source revision control systems -- 
CVS and Subversion -- are good choices. They are free, widely used and 
have wonderful web interfaces. I think Rubyforge uses CVS, so despite 
the folks who swear undying love for Subversion and think that anyone 
who doesn't immediately leave CVS for Subversion is missing out on 
something wonderful, my choice would be CVS over either Darcs or Cogito. :)

Alan Garrison wrote:

> Our company, which is beginning to use Ruby in production systems, has 
> been using Darcs[1] for a little while with general success.  My 
> co-worker has even released a preliminary ruby-darcs interface on 
> RubyForge.  However, a few of Darcs bottlenecks have come up and we've 
> also run across the Cogito[2] project.  I've seen that Darcs has 
> gotten a fair amount of attention in the overall Rubysphere, but I 
> don't recall reading anything about Cogito.  From either an ordinary 
> SCM standpoint for maintaining Ruby projects or using Ruby to interact 
> with the SCM, has anyone chosen Cogito over Darcs?
>
>
> [1] http://www.darcs.net/
> [2] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/cogito/README
>
>

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

http://linuxcapacityplanning.com