>One silly example is that I occasionally like to make mass modifications >to my source code by looping sed over, say, all files that end in .hs. >To detect these files I would just run Unix find on the current >directory, forgetting that there is a pristine cache. My script runs >and all the .hs files in pristine and there we have corruption.
$ find utils -name Main.hs utils/genprimopcode/Main.hs utils/ghc-pkg/Main.hs utils/haddock/src/Main.hs utils/haddock/_darcs/pristine/src/Main.hs utils/hsc2hs/Main.hs utils/hsc2hs/_darcs/pristine/Main.hs utils/nofib-analyse/Main.hs $ find utils -path '*_darcs' -prune -o -name Main.hs -print utils/genprimopcode/Main.hs utils/ghc-pkg/Main.hs utils/haddock/src/Main.hs utils/hsc2hs/Main.hs utils/nofib-analyse/Main.hs find is one of my favourite tools, even on windows!-) >> But pristine is only a copy of a version of working, so you >> don't avoid the trouble at all. >Ah but we do! I know you don't like the tolerant application of patches >to the working directory, and that you have made some nice suggestions >for it to become a little sturdier. In the meantime, having both the >darcs-internal filenames (to avoid trouble in pristine) and high >tolerance for working directory failures means that this works in >practise. If someone on OS A is allowed to check in a file with a name that won't work on OS B, then people on OS B are in trouble, no matter what darcs does to pristine. Or am I missing something? Claus _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
