Max Battcher writes: > Gwern Branwen wrote: > > Format negotiation sounds scary and complex to implement. There's no > > dumb solution here? For example, I was thinking: what if there were > > _darcs/packs/, which contained the pack files, and then pack-enabled > > darcs binaries would automatically look for a _darcs/packs/ when doing > > a get; older darcs have no reason to look for a packs/ subdirectory > > and so would just ignore it. > > I agree... Packs are an ancillary data source that don't necessarily need > to conflict with existing repository data and it seems to me that they can > be placed side-by-side without impacting backward compatibility and without > requiring a new repository format.
I suppose this works for pulling, with a dumb server such as an httpd. But it fails badly with a push; you end up stuffing packs down the throat of a server process that can't handle them. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
