On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, David Roundy wrote: >>> Ah, I see this is talked about on >>> http://wiki.darcs.net/index.html/DarcsTwo >>> >>> I must have read it some time ago and forgotten about it. >>> >>> Anyway, from where I'm sitting, this just shows that primitive patches >>> must be named [...], >> >> No, it doesn't show any of that. It just shows that we need to fix >> darcs, because it's buggy. > > To me, the suggestion on that page of "atomization" and giving predictable > names to the resulting patches is strong evidence that naming primitive > patches is the right thing to do.
It's absolutely the wrong thing for me to do, I can't afford just now to start discussing a reworking of the patch theory for darcs 3.0. Nor can I afford to fix the bugs in darcs 2, nor do I know of anyone with the inclination and knowledge to do so. Which is why I have strongly recommended that people consider not using darcs. In any case, discussion of what should have been done or could have been done is useless and a waste of my time. Discussion of how to fix bugs in darcs without a complete rewrite is also a waste of my time, but at least it's not useless. David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
