Tommy Pettersson wrote:
> Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
>
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 10:00:10PM -0000, Tommy Pettersson wrote:
>> An alternative is to switch to the current darcs-stable, which I
>
> Darn, that is not true.
>
> The bug is actually a known bug. A backport exists (which is why
> I wrongly thought darcs-stable was ok, but I haven't pushed it
> yet). The reason I haven't pushed the backport is (beside I
> wasn't aware it could be triggered this way) it conflicts badly
> with darcs-unstable, and the required conflict resolution is of
> course even worse.
>
> I think I'm ready to wrap up a release of 1.1.0 tomorrow (well
> rc1, and make it final within a week), but I'm not sure that's a
> good idea when everything is focused on darcs2.
I tried the latest darcs-stable recently on Windows, and had some problems.
Perhaps I missed something, but it seemed that 'darcs get --partial' was
getting *all* the patches, ignoring the checkpoint. And due to the known
case-insensitive-filesystem issue that caused the get to fail.
I had to back off to 1.0.9 to get it to work again. I still have the
1.1.0pre binary if you need any more details, but perhaps the above will be
enough to go on.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
