Petr Rockai <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, the problem with that point is that maybe half of your points were > trivially untrue, which sort of puts a dent into the argument itself. :)
Yes, untrue parts certainly don't help anyone's argument. ;-) > You are probably overdoing the "integral" part of the equation, given that the > only difference is administrative. You can import parts of darcs from outside > of darcs just fine, these days. Anyway, the 80/20 problem is equivalently > applicable to in-darcs as it is to out-of-darcs implementation. Perhaps I mean more integral to the repository format. I imagine that a few enhancements to Darcs' repo handling would remove some of the understanding-darcs-internals trickery that most bothers me about the current proposal. Also, such a change could be a relatively formulaic refinement of the current code, rather than being extra code to simulate the same thing. So, hopefully without causing further negativity, I've written up a new proposal, which is in my reply to Eric's message in this thread. G. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
