Adolfo Builes <[email protected]> writes: > The idea is that "everything" in the cache is tried before trying the repos > given with the command, that's now modified, since it checks if any of the > given repos is local and is added to the cache (not the remote ones). Now to > do > what you proposed I should add all the given repos to the cache, and them > separate them in groups ( locals, remotes without authentication, remotes with > authentication ), so now we have all the possible repos from which we could > pull in the cache, and it seems to be breaking the idea behind it :(.
I don't follow -- what idea behind it? And what "it" exactly? Do you mean "sources" as opposed to "cache" here? We always stuff everything we can into "sources" for a good measure. We just need to use that information intelligently later... that's what all the sorting is about. Btw., we may need a way to mark sources as "problematic". I mean things like unresolvable hostnames or unreachable addresses, or even nonexistent directories: these should all be sorted last in their respective groups. So we would have: local caches local repositories local bad caches & repositories remote unauth repositories remote bad unauth repositories remote auth repositories remote auth bad repositories Probably triggering a WARNING whenever we reach a "bad" cache or repository (which is still actually bad -- if it works again, it needs to be restored). This is probably not completely trivial to achieve and has some interesting strings attached to it (like backward compatibility of the sources file...). Please have a think about this when you have a while. Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
