On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Petr Rockai <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Jason Dagit <[email protected]> writes: > > Can someone workout the rules for commuting symlink patches? I think > treating > > them as files which contain a path to where they point is a reasonable > way to > > model them. > just a little (side)note: please don't do the mistake of introducing a > new patch type for something that is adequately served by addfile and > hunk patches. At least unless you want to repeat the setpref > debacle. (It may be that addfile will need substituting, but definitely > be wary of hunks.) Oh, and keep in mind that if we add a new patch type, > we are making an incompatible darcs repository format (akin to the > darcs-2 incompatibility, although arguably less severe). > I've been told in the past that the way the repo formats work is that we should be able to add new "format capabilities" by adding additional lines to the format file with the capabilities. A darcs that doesn't know how to deal with the things listed in that file is supposed to give up and not collaborate with that repository. Overall I don't think I understand what you're getting at. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
