[resending due to some mailer trouble (gah, maybe I use something like OfflineIMAP instead of mutt's native support)]
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 13:45:13 +0200, Vincent Zweije wrote: > Considering that darcs-2 format is a newer format I would expect support > for the old, hashed format to go away eventually. Hence the wish to > convert. If that's the case, I think you're better off waiting for Darcs 3. Hashed is a pretty good format. Darcs-2 is nice for new repositories, but I don't think it's worth the trouble for pre-existing ones. > Looking at the FAQ ansser, I notice it is not entirely consistent: > > Upgrading all the way to the Darcs 2 format could be worthwhile if > conflicts are a big problem in your team. On the one hand, merging > some kinds of conflicts is much easier and faster with this new > format. > > These are both arguments to upgrade, so why does it say "On the other > hand?" Hmm, I see how that would be confusing. We need some help making sure darcs users can easily understand the situation. I've updated the wiki to try using a table instead. What do you think? So should you upgrade? It's a trade-off! It makes sense to use the darcs-2 format for new repositories (the improved merging is nicer), but for some older repositories, just going to hashed repositories is good enough. +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Converting to darcs 2 | Staying with darcs 1 hashed | +======================================+===================================+ | The Darcs 2 format does a better | ... but the Darcs 2 format also | | job at merging some common conflicts | has some important bugs dealing | | (much less chance of exponential | with duplicate patches and nested | | merge issues) | conflicts [1] | +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | There are some known wont-fix | | | bugs with Darcs 1 semantics [2] for | | | which the recommendation is to | | | upgrade to Darcs 2 format | | +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | | The conversion can be difficult | | | and it's NOT backward compatible. | | | There could be a tricky | | | transition period ahead | +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ [1] `Darcs-2 conflict handling bugs <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue?%40search_text=&title=&%40columns=title&topic=15&id=&%40columns=id&creation=&creator=&activity=&%40columns=activity&%40sort=activity&actor=&nosy=&priority=&%40group=priority&status=-1%2C1%2C2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C16%2C17&%40columns=status&assignedto=&%40columns=assignedto&%40pagesize=50&%40startwith=0&%40queryname=&%40old-queryname=&%40action=search>`_ [2] http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1075 ; and more -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
