On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:06:46PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > That's a case where having some kind disjunctive tag point in history could > be good (what's hell is that thing...). > > Let's imagine that one can extend "a posteriori" a darcs tag, by giving > another history that ends-up in the same context. > > So instead of having just patches as dependencies, a tag could have > alternatives of patches. > > That's currently just a rough idea, but I really think that a lot of > interesting use cases wait behind this. > > For instance that would provide a better way for representing checkpoints. A > checkpoint will be an alternative history (as one single big patch), to the > classical history.
I'd rather eliminate checkpoints (which is what darcs-2 does, for the hashed and darcs-2 formats). > This also would help people trying to incrementally convert their history. A > team could start using darcs by importing a snapshot of their project (as a > few patches), instead of converting history. Indeed for some reasons, > converting history can be harder than expected. So this team could start > patching, and then later on, plug their old history back. > > Any thoughts about this? This sounds overly-complicated to me. I know this is a common sort of request, wanting to add history onto the back end of a project. Currently this can be done with an ugly hack, you just need to define the same tag in both cases (with same name and date), and ensure that your repositories are broken on that tag. I don't, however, see a good reason to elevate this ugly hack to a feature. How would doing so make it less ugly? -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
