On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:49:46AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > This mostly reflects our different priorities regarding the > > darcs-git-darcs round trip vs the git-darcs-git round trip. > > Yes. My feeling is that you're looking at things from Git's point of > view, while I'm looking at them from Darcs'. Which is funny.
Indeed, that does seem to be the case... :) > > I suppose the reason you want both is so that the git-darcs-git roundtrip > > without patch reordering is lossless? > > Yes, but there's a more fundamental issue. The author info must be > preserved, as this is the data that's useful to the human user (who's > the jerk who wrote this code?). The committer info must be preserved, > as otherwise we'll end up with distinct homonymous patches -- and we > already know how kindly Darcs reacts to that sort of situation. So if > my mapping scheme is to be usable, we really need to preserve both in > a single Darcs patch. Okay, that's a good point. If git will allow distinct patches with identical author, author-date and comment, then we'd be hosed. So I'll agree (I guess I was just hoping that that wouldn't ever happen). > > 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. > > Yes. But even in your mapping, I don't see any good reason why you > couldn't encode the Committer in the patch. And it would avoid the issue > outlined above, which applies equally well to both schemes. True, but it seems to me to be a little bit ugly. > > I think I'd prefer to include "git" or "Git" in the name, so users could > > see what this is referring to. > > Okay, then I'll use Git-Committer. All right. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
