>> So, what about agreeing to interpret _darcs/format lines "A|B|..|X" >> as: A is necessary to read the repos, and A, B ... to X are necessary >> to write to it? >> > I thought about it, but this means breaking compatbility: we'd have to > write it under _darcs/format2, and have _darcs/format be the single line > 'format2'. The problem is that we cannot change how darcs 2.5 (or 2.4) > reads _darcs/format, so we cannot afford to have a "new semantics" > alternative with already known properties (for instance, no > darcs3|hashed). That should not be an insurmontable problem, given that > darcs 2.5 understands very few format strings, but it is bug prone.
See below: > Stupid question: does '|' ever appear in current repositories? I believe not (although Eric should confirm). This is why I think changing the semantics before we introduce '|' can be done. We are lucky that the only darcs clients that exist (as of now) are ours. So this is not a stupid question at all, this is THE question :-) Guillaume _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
