> I would update from CVS to darcs. Do my work in darcs. When I am ready > to commit back to CVS, I tell tailor to sync. Tailor would first check > to see if there had been any updates to CVS, and pull those, creating > darcs patches for each changeset. Then immediately after committing > each darcs patch to CVS, tailor would check to see if there had been any > updates to CVS. There would be at least one (from the patch just > committed), which would be pulled back. CVS would now be happy, and > darcs would detect no changes, and would also be happy. Tailor could > then continue with the next darcs patch to commit to CVS.
Unfortunately, tailor would generate a patch from CVS (the most recent one) where there is already a patch in darcs that does the same thing. So instead of "darcs detecting no changes", darcs would try to merge the two patches that have the identical effect. In the best case, this would result in a conflict that you would have to manually merge. In the worst case, this would result in darcs going into its exponential complexity case and locking up anytime you try to use that repository again. This problem can be solved by unpulling the original version of the patch before pulling the "CVS-to-darcs" version of the same patch, but you have to unpull it in every repository where it exists, which is tricky in a multi-developer distributed environment... If anyone comes up with a good hack for this then by all means post to this list and e-mail me. I could convert some of my co-workers over to darcs if only this problem were not so vexing. --Z _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
