On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 15:03:27 +0200, Vincent Zweije wrote: > I'd say, put the left top against the right bottom, and the left middle > against the right top.
OK, I can see how that make senses. Now it says +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Converting to darcs 2 | Staying with darcs 1 hashed | +======================================+===================================+ | The Darcs 2 format does a better | The conversion can be difficult | | job at merging some common conflicts | and it's NOT backward compatible. | | (much less chance of exponential | There could be a tricky | | merge issues) | transition period ahead | +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | There are some known wont-fix | ... but the Darcs 2 format also | | bugs with Darcs 1 semantics [2] for | has some important bugs dealing | | which the recommendation is to | with duplicate patches and nested | | upgrade to Darcs 2 format | conflicts [1] | +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ > || [2] http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1075 ; and more > > What I take away from link [2] (without spending an inordinate amount of > time) is no more than "darcs-1 (the program) has a bug we're not fixing". I've added a more major one (issue279) to this (after a bit of digging through the tracker). Perhaps there's another good example out there. Thanks for the help! The sort of attention to clarity you're giving us will benefit lot of other users in the long run... -- 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
