Some random comments about the bits I can digest easily:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, David Roundy wrote:
2. We're going to have to be doing considerably more rearranging and modifying of patches than in current darcs, in which a patch file is untouched after it's created in a repository.
Is this true of optimize --reorder? If not, are gets already unsafe in that particular case?
5. (The crazy idea) The new scheme is going to have to treat primitive patches as the "first-class" objects, rather than named composite patches as is currently the case.
This is a good thing anyway. Conflicts/dependencies with small parts of composite patches causing the whole lot to cause problems (e.g. inability to unpull a dependend-on patch) is a real nuisance sometimes.
I've now got a new related idea, which has a very strong appeal. How about we make the "name" (patch id, or PatchInfo) of a patch no longer be part of its identity, but instead be a sort of tag that's attached to it? So that a given primitive patch could now have more than one name.
This sounds good.
This would give us "for free" the feature that patches that are identical except in name do not conflict.
I've said this before, but please don't allow this to happen without human confirmation that it should. I know that in 99% of cases it's what's wanted, but in the other 1% or 0.1% it's not, and it's much harder to sort out the mess when it's happened unwantedly than vice versa.
Cheers, Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
