On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:32:16PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Sun Aug 7 09:31:23 EDT 2005 David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * use author field of git commit rather than committer as the darcs > > author. > > This is mostly to enable forward-compatibility with a possible future > > crazy-tagging scheme, but also because I think that it's better to > > lose the commiter information than the author information. > > I disagree. I think we need to store both the author and committer > information in the Darcs patch. > > What I think I'm going to implement is the following scheme. When > going from Git to Darcs, put a in Darcs's author field. Check if > a==c; if not, append a line ``Committer: ...'' to Darcs changelog. > > When going from Darcs to Git, check for a line of the form > ``Committer: ...'' being the last line of the Darcs changelog. If > present, dump ``...'' into the Git committer field. > > This scheme preserves both the author and the committer, and preserves > Darcs-git's round-trip properties. It is a hack -- a more elegant > solution would be to allow arbitrary metadata to be associated with a > patch. But of course this extra metadata would need to be included in > Darcs' patch hashes, a possibility which you've already dismissed.
That's not too bad a scheme. It does sort of eliminate the meaning of the "commiter" field, since this allows one to easily generate git trees that have two or more *different* commits with identical commit information. I believe the commiter exist precisely to avoid this, so that every new commit would be created with both a new committer the date the commit was created, and we'd be violating that. And, in fact, we'd also be generating false information as far as the committer goes, in that we'd be attributing commits to people who didn't make them. Of course, most of my reason for disliking this is because of my crazy-tagging perspective... the author is the person who made the patch and the committer is the person who made the tag. This mostly reflects our different priorities regarding the darcs-git-darcs round trip vs the git-darcs-git round trip. It's really only an issue if someone is cherry-picking, but it seems to me that people using darcs together with git are quite likely to be using darcs precisely because it can do cherry-picking (and patch rearrangement, in general). I suppose the reason you want both is so that the git-darcs-git roundtrip without patch reordering is lossless? > Do you believe that a more explicit name than just ``Committer'' > should be used in the Darcs changelog? I think I'd prefer to include "git" or "Git" in the name, so users could see what this is referring to. -- David Roundy _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
