Juliusz Chroboczek writes: > > I mean self-inconsistent (e.g. the behaviour I described in my > > message about Issue365, makes a repository invent previously > > non-existent pending changes). Suppose a repository had been > > tampered with in a Byzantine way, but subsequently passed 'darcs > > check'. It could well have been modified, and might no longer be > > consistent with other repositories, but I would hope that it would > > still be self-consistent (by virtue of having passed 'darcs check'). > > Darcs check verifies that the sequence of patches since the last > checkpoint can be applied, and that the result matches the pristine > cache.
Perhaps it should also check that the result of applying the sequence of patches does not include a non-empty set of pending changes. I have a repo where pulling all its patches (into a fresh repo) produces spurious pending changes, even though the repos pass 'darcs check' Tim _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
