On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Max Battcher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Petr Rockai wrote: > >> 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). >> > > Somewhat related to that point: if darcs were to add symlink > (and/or hardlink?) tracking support the point in time where I think that > makes the most sense is alongside the tokenization of file names proposed as > a possibility on the roadmap. > Queuing up several repository format changes and making them all "go live" at once seems reasonable. Call it darcs-3 format if it makes you happier :) But, I think the discussion of tokenization and if/which things should be queued is probably something that should be agreed up and decided outside of a feature request for symlinks. Eg., make a feature request in round up (if there isn't already) hold a public discussion on the mailing list and involve the release manager. It's a good discussion to have, but let's try to do it in a different thread, please. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
