On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:28:48AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 06:12:26PM +0100, > Jamie Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > a message of 34 lines which said: > > > The trouble is that not all repositories are created by init or get. > > They can reasonably be, e.g. tar'd, ftp'd, or rsync'd, > > Is it really "reasonable"? I mean, is it really an accepted practice? > I know that CVS or Subversion users do it all the time, to be able to > work disconnected but, with darcs, what could be the point in such > copying?
One might rsync or ftp when Darcs (or a shell) is not available at the destination. One might tar, e.g. to fit a large repo onto removable media. I use Unison to sync up repos on my desktop and laptop without having to record everything. Yes, manual editing is an option, but it's not a good thing to require. Especially since it may be some time before the effects of forgetting (or not knowing) to do so become obvious. > > However, provided no functionality depends on absolute uniqeness, > > As you wrote, collision would just be a nuisance, not a showstopper so > I believe my idea still hold Mmm, but your idea will cause collisions to be guaranteed for every subsequent patch in a pair of repos. That makes the scheme completely useless from then on. OTOH, Collisions in patch hashes just mean that you can't refer to those particular patches by hash. The rest of the repo can remain unaffected. What exactly do you expect to gain by having repo ids rather than patch hashes? -- Jamie Webb _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
