Max Battcher wrote:
This may be completely off the mark, I'm entirely ignorant of how
partial repositories work (and I've not had the reason to work with
one thus far), but does darcs need the "url symlink" patches anyway?
Why can't darcs just take on the lazy behavior whenever a patch just
doesn't exist or is perhaps an empty file or some other similar
thing... ie, in that changes -v when it needs the information in a
patch and the patch isn't available couldn't it just attempt an
auto-pull of that patch from _darcs/prefs/defaultrepo, unless some
alternative is specified in an argument?
This sounds like much more reasonable behaviour than auto-downloading from the
original location that was specified with 'darcs get'.
I find it hard to pin down exactly what I dislike about --lazy, but it's
something like this: I think of 'darcs get' as like 'cp', but with --lazy it
would be like 'ln -s'. You're specifying exactly what the requirements are --
that the source repository doesn't move -- but to me that's an unreasonable
requirement. The 'cp' semantics are pure, but the 'ln -s' semantics put your
repository in the IO monad!
And I don't have the option to retarget the link later, so if the source repo
does move, I'm hosed. In all other things, darcs is completely agnostic about
the location of a repo, so it seems strange to create a fixed link.
There are other things that could go wrong. For example, I'm used to pulling
from a --partial repo to get a new --partial repo (e.g. the ghc-6.6 repo used to
be partial, it isn't any more).
Personally I'd be happy if darcs said something like:
cannot complete this operation because the following patch is not
available:
"blah blah ..."
please use --full-repo P to specify where to fetch the patch from.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
