On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:29:49AM -0400, David Roundy wrote: > 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: > >> > >> 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".
Well, I think the algorithms, repo invariants, etc are closer to darcs 2 than darcs 1, and that's what the people this doc is targetted at are interested in. But I'll add some clarification of the similarities and differences; I think that that info is of interest anyway. Thanks Ian _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
