Max Battcher <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no need for a "new kind of context". ``darcs changes --context`` is > just fine. You suggest that darcs does magic when the tag at the bottom of a > context is missing, but it is fairly simple process:
It is relatively simple, yes, but insufficient. The original proposal has it such that Darcs cannot see both of the branches/repos at the same time and is given the context file for one as a substitute for having access to it. When it finds that that context is insufficient, it doesn't have an easy way of getting more. It has neither the filename nor the content for the tag-patch or for the next inventory down. One might say that we could fix that by using the inventory file rather a generated context. Indeed we could, and I'd propose something even stronger, as will soon appear in my reply to Eric. In reply to the rest of your email, I would say that, yes, if you assume away the working copy, then it's all very simple. I'd just suggest that it's then not very useful. At least not to any of the users I work with. G. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
