On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:38 AM, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 13:10:06 -0400, David Roundy wrote: > >> What I don't know (and maybe it's hidden somewhere in those emails > >> that I only skimmed) is what problem there is. Why is it considered > >> important for users to be able to write "Ignore-this: foobar" in their > >> patches and have darcs display this to people who pull from them? > > > > I think it's just Zooko trying to be on the safe side. He thinks it's > > conceivable that users would actually put Ignore-this: into their patch > > logs for daily use (I think it's a stretch, but who knows). > > > > The second thing he is trying to do is to make us more future-proof by > > suggesting a way to do things so that we can add more metadata in the > > future without confusing darcs 2.1.0 > > I don't see that we've yet added any metadata, and don't see any > reason to do so. I think this is a red herring, and we should wait > until there's a feature that would benefit from this. Or at least we > should ask whether there is some sort of hypothetical feature that it > would benefit. In the absence of any of those, I'd say we've got what > we want. Actually, people propose various per-patch features from time to time. Allowing user-defined attributes on patches (metadata) would be a nice pre-factor that allows us to address many of these concerns. Take for instance the proposal to have local-only patches. These patches could have metedata like: X-Local-Only: True Note: I'm using the metadata syntax compatible with Trent Buck's proposal. It somehow missed Eric's summary, but the idea is to use X-Foo headers like email uses. Trent quoted the RFC but I'm too lazy to look it up. As far as the concern about users putting Ignore-this: into their > patch information, I don't see it as a compelling reason to add > complexity to the code, especially since I consider hidden comments to > be a very reasonable feature to add to darcs. I think in the Jason/Trent proposal, it would be more like "X-Ignore-this: ....", and darcs could choose to ignore it. Which attributes to ignore could be defined in a prefs file. There are lots of options to consider, I think. One final note, I would prefer if the user-defined attributes had their own place in the patch format, but I seem to be the only person who feels strongly about it. So, I guess putting it into the comment field is OK for now. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
