On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Max Battcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trent W. Buck wrote: > > Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 15:19:46 -0400, Max Battcher wrote: > >>> meaningful when it shows up in .dpatch-es. For instance, "Patch-salt:" > >>> would provide more information about what that field is and why the UI > >>> hides it but it is contained in the patches. > > > > +1, for the reasons Eric gives: > > > >> Interesting thought. The code is designed to allow us to rename or > >> add more ignorable fields in the future. Indeed "Patch salt" sounds > >> more informative. Send a patch? > > Sent a patch adding "Patch-salt: " to the appropriate list, which was > interesting to search for, not having too great of a sense of darcs' > repository organization. > > > Also, RFC 822 specifies extension fields have names starting with "X-". > > Perhaps a similar convention could be used here? That is, as separate > > features: > > > > - by default, darcs suppresses X- fields in user output. > > - darcs >>2.1 uses X-Patch-Salt internally to avoid <a problem>. > > Well, Patch-salt isn't really an extension field to darcs as the > proposal is to make it standard, by default, always on in darcs. On the > other hand, extending the current ignore support to support a Regex such > as "^X\-([\w\-]+): " might provide a useful extension area for third > party tools to use (for example "X-Tailor-Something: "). I just want to go on the record as saying: 1) I support adding user definable attributes to patches. 2) I dislike adding attributes to patches by take over the long descriptions of patches. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
