-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:48 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Gwern Branwen writes: > > > It seems to me that one big repo backwards-incompatibility was bad > > enough; is there no way packs could be implemented such that 2.x > > binaries simply ignore packs and download patches like normal if they > > do not support packs? > > Since darcs can't use dumb servers yet AFAIK, this is an issue of > whether format negotiation is available darcs-to-darcs. If it is, > then you just have the darcs with the data send patches unless packs > are requested.
Format negotiation sounds scary and complex to implement. There's no dumb solution here? For example, I was thinking: what if there were _darcs/packs/, which contained the pack files, and then pack-enabled darcs binaries would automatically look for a _darcs/packs/ when doing a get; older darcs have no reason to look for a packs/ subdirectory and so would just ignore it. - -- gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAklHGtwACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oISdwCePbbKqzVQWrjMwX5b+JU4ya35 OwQAn2BmPfU6YWeucTinx9DfHsrOWs0u =JCrd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
