On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:10:44AM -0500, David Roundy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 06:53:07PM +0000, Ian Lynagh wrote: > > This sounds scary to me. It looks like it'd have all the problems that > setpref has, and I'd rather not repeat that mistake (or at least keep using > the same implementation of that mistake).
The only problems with setpref I can think of are caused by the details of its implementation, not anything fundamental. > I'd say that (if we went with this idea) we should not define this command, > but instead use the existing setpref mechanism, perhaps to work like > boring, where they can point the permissions at a file of their choice > (e.g. one in the repository). Which file? The mapping of file to permission class could be a file in the repo, but the mapping of permission class to actual permissions is per-machine. > > You could then "darcs setpermissions executable myScript; darcs rec". > > The permission group for a file would have to be stored under _darcs > > somwehere. "darcs rec" could either warn if you change the permissions > > with chmod, and it could even try to guess which group you wanted it in. > > This is the problem with your approach. Because we're now storing "extra" > information, we are required to implement an extra database. That is true, but don't we have plans to do that for other reasons too? e.g. a mapping from FilePath to [PatchName], so we know which patches affect a file without having to read them all, for optimising "darcs changes filename"? So for each file we could have a set of extra info, like John was suggesting. The easiest way to do this would probably be to mirror the repo hierarchy in _darcs/extrastuff (or maybe we would have to have 2 mirrors, one for file extra stuff and the other for directory extra stuff). Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
