Wow, so long since I updated this. Each time I remember that I do have a technical blog, and think to add something to it, I am tempted to start by rewriting the whole blog system in some brand new way that will make it easier to post to (and, the theory goes, therefore make me more likely to write in it). The process of writing more code creates something that I'm even less likely to understand next time, and code begets more code. It's like a depth-first search through an infinite design space. Bad idea.
And speaking of technical distractions, I've been playing with Mercurial recently. I like it. I moved Foolscap from Darcs to Mercurial last week, mostly to learn more about it, and I've been pleased. My main reason was to make it easier for folks to hack on Foolscap: darcs is all fine if you're running debian and someone else has compiled it for you, but if you have to build it yourself you have to start by building GHC, which is a non-trivial adventure.
Mercurial's plugin architecture is pretty nice: one line in the .hgrc file tells it to import a .py file, which registers a set of new subcommands with the main /usr/bin/hg entry point. Which reminds me that I want to adapt Trac's plugin mechanism (which lets you drop an .egg file in a specific directory and then reference modules inside it from the config file) to Buildbot, to make it easier for users to get interesting code into their master.cfg files. Not that huge of a change, but it would make the installation instructions for that code to get simpler; no need to change sys.path from within master.cfg .
And because the plugin approach makes it easy, people are writing fun plugins. The Tk-based graphical revision browser is great (and has a little tram-line-style graph of which revisions got merged into which, very cute). The 'bisect' extension helps you do an efficient binary search for the revision which introduced (or fixed) a bug.
I'm still trying to figure out the "forest" extension, though. I think it's what I want for tracking a couple dozen separate small projects (things I've been doing in CVS for years, since I can update just one at a time, or commit the whole lot of them and push the work from my laptop to my desktop). But for the life of me I can't figure out how to use it, and the documentation is heavy on the per-subcommand reference and light on the big-picture descriptions.
And mercurial is fast. The cgi-based web server lets them speed up the initial checkout: for the full Foolscap repository, doing a 'darcs get' through the naive (twisted.web) server took 22 seconds (of which probably 17 was network), whereas doing the equivalent 'hg clone' from a hgwebdir.cgi server (under apache) took 6 total. Mercurial manages to store the history more compactly too: the tree with full history under darcs was 4.4MB, and 2.9MB in hg.
I've been using Darcs for a year or two now, and we've been using it extensively at work, and it's fun (the incremental commit feature is amazing, and I miss it in hg, and it wouldn't be impossible to add). But every once in a while something explodes (possibly because we've used 'darcs oblit' more than once, and that seems to be an underexplored corner of the darcs jungle). I really like the append-only and cryptographically-secure nature of hg revisions, and regret that you can't securely and concisely name a specific darcs revision the way you can with mercurial. Having spent a lot of time defining sha-256 hash-based identifiers recently, I'm coming to be wary of any system that doesn't let me create strong references like that.
So I'm looking forward to playing with it more. Commuting patches is nifty, but for things like Buildbot and Foolscap I'm not really creating crazy branches with patches that need to be held out of trunk for months at a time. So I think hg has a lot of promise.