On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Florent Becker wrote: >>> Yes. I'm not sure why you're thinking this could cause a problem. We >>> should never, however, have a PatchSet of length zero. (Meaning that >>> the smallest PatchSet should be (NilRL :<: NilRL) or [[]] in list >>> terms. >> >> I don't think it would be a problem, i was just hunting for implicit >> invariants. So, to make things clear, do we cut after each clean tag? >> >> [[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3] [h i]] and [[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3 h i]] >> represent the same repository, don't they? Is the difference between >> them meaningful? Are they both likely to come up? >> > One more question: do we have the guarantee that tags are as far right as > possible? That is, in my example, is [[a *t1* *b* c d e t2][f g t3 h i]] a > correct PatchSet (or similarly, [[a b t1 c d *t2*] [*e* f g t3 h i]])? It > seems having that kind of PatchSet changes the semantics of > Darcs.Match.get_matching_tag. If we don't have these PatchSets, the > SealedPatchSet returned by get_matching_tag represents what we get by > pulling all matching tags from a repo. Otherwise, there might be some more > patches. So, which is the semantics of PatchSet on that point, and the one > of get_matching_tag?
No, there's no guarantee of patch order, except for that required by dependencies (e.g. a tag can never come before any of its dependencies). I'm pushing a fix to the get_matching_tag haddock, which may answer your question. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
