On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jan Nijtmans <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Consider the following two control artifacts: > D 2013-08-16T12:58:44.182 > T +closed 6d42bcbef1a19fce44d20c43869399387b99a97b > U jan.nijtmans > Z .... > and > D 2013-08-16T12:58:44.182 > T +closed abfc26f6da112a56821946ae9dff3fee8a0aa205 > U jan.nijtmans > Z .... > > Those two control artifacts could be produced by doing > a "merge --integrate" twice and then commit it. It > would be more logical to combine those two into a > single control artifact, as they are produced in a > single fossil operation: > > D 2013-08-16T12:58:44.182 > T +closed 6d42bcbef1a19fce44d20c43869399387b99a97b > T +closed abfc26f6da112a56821946ae9dff3fee8a0aa205 > U jan.nijtmans > Z .... > > However, the manifest_parse() function doesn't accept > this combined control artifact because T-cards should > be in strict lexographical order. But .... in this > case the two T-cards are for different uuid's, so > they don't conflict in any way! > > Therefore I propose to relax the restriction a little > such that this is allowed: T-cards should still be > in strict lexographical order, but the artifact-id's > should be taken into account first. > No. The correct fix is to put the T cards in the right order. > > This means that I cannot implement combining those two > control artifacts yet, as older fossil versions would > not accept such combined control artifact. > > The implementation of this relaxation can be found here: > <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/f2ae58e393> > > Any objections to this change? > > Regards, > Jan Nijtmans > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
