On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:14:17PM -0800, John Meacham wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:29:06AM -0800, zooko wrote: > > I know that I personally often want darcs to stop unsetting the "x" > > bit. We could imagine a "permission settings" patch type and patches > > which say "set executable" and "set not-executable". I know you've > > already said that this would make sense. I had thought, until your > > recent message, that progress on this front, as well as on the > > symlink front, was waiting for darcs-2 patch theory to be sorted out. > > How about a general patch type that can associate various 'flags' with a > file. patches would simply be "set <flag> on <file>" or "unset > <flag> on <file>". > > now, flag itself can be an arbitrary string, darcs itself can interpret > some, such as 'execute' meaning to set the execute bit. but people (or > the darcs maintainers) will be free to extend the flag mechanism to > other uses with an appropriate posthook and the patch format need not be > updated. > > for instance a 'worldwritable' flag could be used without updating darcs > and a posthook could do the appropriate chmod after pulling. > > The only issue will be namespace collision, but a wiki page and some > conventions (like prepending local flags with 'x-') should take care of > it in practice I would think. > > popular flags could eventually be canonized with a defined meaning. > (such as 'execute').
This sounds elegant, but would require that darcs implement a database of flags. Which would be all right if a new developer were to write it, but seems like a waste of time for an existing developer, since the only existing use for it (the executable bit) would be much easier to implement directly. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
