On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:07:29AM -0400, David Roundy wrote: >> >> It might be worth mentioning in your documentation that while the >> internals are similar to darcs 2, the semantics that you're >> implementing is the semantics of darcs 1. > > Are you referring to not treating duplicate patches specially?
That is an interesting way to describe it, but yes, that is the difference between darcs 1 and darcs 2. >> That would be more honest than to say that your theory is similar to >> that of darcs 2. > > I'm not deliberately trying to be dishonest :-) I know, but by describing your theory as being similar to darcs 2, that is the effect. It's much more similar to darcs 1. The implementation is more similar to darcs 2, but the semantics are what is important to users--and to developers. No one particularly cares what the patch looks like on its inside, or whether you've chosen to call your conflict patches "conflictors" rather than "mergers". David _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
