[Jamie Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:49:58 +]:
But remember that domains are essentially repo-local (It just happens
that's you'd probably version-control the domains file). That would
mean that 'replace' could affect a different set of files in each
repo! Worse, that would
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 15:01 schrieb Jonathon Mah:
[...]
I like your suggestion. I like Tomasz's extension even more.
But note that Tomasz's extension is POSIX-specific. Maybe we should use
Haskell scripts instead of UNIX shell scripts.
[...]
Best wishes,
Wolfgang
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:31:08PM +0100, Albert Reiner wrote:
however, you raise a good point that perhaps we should give the main
domain a name
Well, what about the name being an empty string? I can see people
wanting to use any name you might come up with.
Bad idea. Empty command
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:25:23PM +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 15:01 schrieb Jonathon Mah:
[...]
I like your suggestion. I like Tomasz's extension even more.
But note that Tomasz's extension is POSIX-specific. Maybe we should use
Haskell scripts instead
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:25:23PM +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 15:01 schrieb Jonathon Mah:
[...]
I like your suggestion. I like Tomasz's extension even more.
But note that Tomasz's extension is POSIX-specific. Maybe we should use
Haskell scripts instead
[Jamie Webb [EMAIL PROTECTED], Thu, 2 Feb 2006 18:56:34 +]:
I think 'replace' depends on every file it modifies, thus it is just
as poisonous as any other patch. This is the trouble in general with
trying to intersect domains or anything fancy like that. David has
previously said that
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:22:42PM +0100, Albert Reiner wrote:
An example for this would be the selection of the domain (sic!) the
replacement operator acts on: One of the problems `replace` currently
has is the fact that all the files it acts upon must already be in the
repo. A domain might
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:17:50PM +, Jamie Webb wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 07:25:23PM +0100, Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 15:01 schrieb Jonathon Mah:
[...]
I like your suggestion. I like Tomasz's extension even more.
But note that Tomasz's
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:27:02PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:11:09PM +, Jamie Webb wrote:
While I agree that some sort of support for multiple projects would be
very useful, this implementation has already been proposed, discussed,
and another one chosen.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:45:28PM +, Jamie Webb wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:27:02PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:11:09PM +, Jamie Webb wrote:
While I agree that some sort of support for multiple projects would be
very useful, this implementation has
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:18:55PM +0100, Albert Reiner wrote:
Some questions and thoughts on your proposal - I hope I have not
missed anything in the discussion so far:
- Suppose we have two repos, A and B. Neither of these has a
domainfile (or an empty one), so that everything in either
On Jan 31, 2006, at 12:32 AM, John Meacham wrote:
utilities Util/
doc Doc/
boolean Boolean/
cmm Language/Cmm/
genutil GenUtil.hs
what this does is declare a set of mutally exclusive domains,
everything in the
repo that is not listed is considererd a part of the unnamed 'main'
domain.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:32:05AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
basically, I want to be able to declare 'domains' which are simply mutually
exclusive sets of files in a repository. The main new behavior is that 'darcs
record' will refuse to create a patch that crosses domain boundries.
I like
Hi John,
On 2006-01-31, at 19:02, John Meacham wrote:
I propose no change to the repo format or new patch types or
anything that
would break compatability.
basically, I want to be able to declare 'domains' which are simply
mutually
exclusive sets of files in a repository. The main new
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:31:44AM +1030, Jonathon Mah wrote:
then what happens to older patches? Can patches on the 'genutil'
domain now be applied to 'utilities'? Can new 'utilities' patches,
which operate on both Util/ and GenUtil.hs, be applied to
repositories that still contain the
utilities Util/
doc Doc/
boolean Boolean/
cmm Language/Cmm/
genutil GenUtil.hs
If --match accepted filenames then you could write scripts which did something
like:
darcs --changes --match=filename ^Util filename ^Doc filename ^Boolean
filename Language/Cmm filename ^GenUtil.hs
Any
utilities Util/
doc Doc/
boolean Boolean/
cmm Language/Cmm/
genutil GenUtil.hs
If --match accepted filenames then you could write scripts which did something
like:
darcs --changes --match=filename ^Util filename ^Doc filename ^Boolean
filename Language/Cmm filename
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:32:28AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any patches which matched that query would be those that violate your
domains restriction.
... except for the logic error so that only a patch which touched all five
domains would match...
and that the point is to keep
and that the point is to keep devopers from creating such patches in
the first place, not identifying them after the fact.
So create a posthook that says if changes --match=filenames blah ; then echo
'NO CROSSING DOMAINS PLEASE' ; fi.
Regards,
Zooko
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:38:38AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 11:32:28AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any patches which matched that query would be those that violate your
domains restriction.
... except for the logic error so that only a patch which touched
[Jason M. Felice [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:53:59 -0500]:
My impression (and I don't
presume to have any weight around here, granted) is that this is way too
specific a thing to get into the darcs code.
+1
Furthermore, if you don't want
and that the point is to keep devopers from creating such patches in
the first place, not identifying them after the fact.
So create a posthook that says if changes --match=filenames blah ;
then echo
'NO CROSSING DOMAINS PLEASE' ; fi.
Ah, but that wouldn't work on any non-unix system. I
My impression (and I don't
presume to have any weight around here, granted) is that this is way too
specific a thing to get into the darcs code.
For what it is worth, I currently accomplish something similar just by pulling
all of the patches of a dozen different projects into one repo, and
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:32:05AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
darcs is just about perfect except for one thing, not having a straightforward
way to compose repositories. I know this issue has been discussed quite a bit
but I think I have a very lightweight proposal to mitigate this problem.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Daan Leijen wrote:
and that the point is to keep devopers from creating such patches in
the first place, not identifying them after the fact.
So create a posthook that says if changes --match=filenames blah ;
then echo
'NO CROSSING DOMAINS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My impression (and I don't
presume to have any weight around here, granted) is that this is way too
specific a thing to get into the darcs code.
For what it is worth, I currently accomplish something similar just by pulling
all of the patches of a dozen different
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:11:09PM +, Jamie Webb wrote:
While I agree that some sort of support for multiple projects would be
very useful, this implementation has already been proposed, discussed,
and another one chosen. No-one ever wrote the code though:
Yeah, I am aware of that
You make a good case, but personally I still don't like domains because they
tamper with one of the beautiful things about darcs: its minimal number of
grouping/naming concepts. Unlike the alternatives, darcs has no separate
concept for branches aside from the concept of repos, and in order to
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 09:40:30PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You make a good case, but personally I still don't like domains because they
tamper with one of the beautiful things about darcs: its minimal number of
grouping/naming concepts. Unlike the alternatives, darcs has no separate
Jamie Webb wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:32:05AM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
darcs is just about perfect except for one thing, not having a straightforward
way to compose repositories. I know this issue has been discussed quite a bit
but I think I have a very lightweight proposal to
The filename issue is a red herring. Currently, darcs treats file names
in a case sensitive manner, even if the underlying FS doesn't -- try
adding 'foo.c' and 'Foo.c' with Win32 darcs sometime.
The script question doesn't preclude using a different script language
if and the appropriate
31 matches
Mail list logo
