On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:36:39AM +0100, Jamie Webb wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:28:48AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > 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.
I think this is a pretty strong argument against the idea of unique numeric repository IDs. > [...] 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. Yeah, I think that hashes of the patch ID can serve as sufficiently useful unique patch IDs. The patch ID (author+date+name+log) is already required to be unique--although darcs doesn't do anything special to enforce this, darcs fails if it's not true, so we've already got a unique patch identifier. The patch hash is also already used, and in the current implementation also required to be unique (since it's the patch filename). It's also used in parts of the user interface (via --match), it's not not easy to obtain. I think the outstanding issue with unique and convenient patch IDs is really one of making them convenient rather than that of making them unique. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
