On Tuesday 16 December 2008, [email protected] wrote: > Note two things, as far as packs are concerned: > -backwards incompatibility only matters for pulling/getting from a > "public" repository, push/send remains compatible between packed and > unpacked repositories -Contrarily to darcs 1 vs darcs 2, there's no > semantic difference, which means that convert is innocuous. > > For these two reasons, i think the easiest way is to stop worrying > about backwards compatibility and have an unpacked mirror for each > public packed repository, with post-hooks on each that ensure they keep > in sync.
This is the road to management nightmare. No matter what hooks you use, whenever there is duplicate data, it will become desynchronized sooner or later and you need to constantly make sure they are in sync. If such a solution would be chosen to deal with the problem I wouldn't even consider using it. IMO, these things should be transparent for the end user, not require him to setup and maintain parallel repositories. Otherwise people will move to a simpler solution, one that interferes less with their work and just works. Any solution based on data duplication is a bad idea IMO, unless the purpose is to have redundant data to recover from a disaster. -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
