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
