I would like to warn that darcs has some definite performance problems, allthough slime is so small that it is unlikely to be a problem.
After having sufficiently tired with CVS, I went on a quest to find a more moderne replacement. I arrived, at darcs after an uneasy period using TLA/Arch, following a number of excited reviews in the lisp community.
However, I have twice (with different projects) experienced that merging between repositories stopped working. Darcs uses some hairy lazy-evaluation analysis of the complete patch combination graph to determine dependencies and this is what broke, I think. In one instance it just kept on working, and after 23 hours I lost patience and gave up, whether it was due to an endless loop in the code or a combinatorial explosion in the data I shall not say, but work it did not.
In fairness, one example was my homediretory where I keep dot files under revision control to exercise control and to enable safe moving of information between my various accounts. It is rather impressive how many files and directories that accumulates in ones homedir over time, so this was clearly putting some stress on darcs. The other exmple involved a number of binary files which may have contributed to the problem.
As I said, I do not think that slime is in any direct peril but those experiences made it hard for me to trust darcs, all its other nice features aside.
I am now a happy subversion user. One of the strong points for subversion in my book is that it is developed by some of the old CVS notabilities.
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Christian Lynbech | christian #@ defun #. dk ------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual. - petonic@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)