2013/8/19 Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com>: > As long as the artifact types are syntactically unambiguous, meaning it's > always possible to determine their type based on their card letters (letters > only, ignoring the card parameters), i'm happy :). Any ambiguity would > potentially open up a big can of worms for both fossil(1) and fossil(3).
I'm looking at the algorithm in fossil now which determines the type. Most types are easy to distinguish because they have unique cards which only occur in that type. The only difficult types are Control artifacts and Manifests: The cards allowed in Manifests are a super-set of the cards allowed in Control artifacts. I found one example which shows that fossil's method is not 100% correct (== assuming the documentation is correct). According to the documentation, this artifact should be valid: <http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/2a4e4cf03ec12f99> In stead, fossil handles this one as a valid Control artifact. It cannot be a Control artifact because it has self-referential T-cards. It has all mandatory cards for a Manifest, so it should be handled as one. I added a check which determines that this artifact is not a valid Control artifact here: <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/13161f39aa> but it looks like that's not enough to determine the type of this artifact correctly. Ongoing....... 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