On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 09:25:44AM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: > - we /could/ perhaps implement --no-working-directory, which is > conceptually cleaner for push-only repositories, in my opinion > http://bugs.darcs.net/issue431 > > - on the other hand, for hashed repositories --no-working-directory > would be less transparent than a hypothetical --no-pristine-tree, > because of our internal gobbledegooky filenames... we would have > to do something like darcs show contents and darcs show files to > retrieve files, yuck :-(
There are times when having no working directory is fine, or perhaps even desireable. I have some repositories on my server that are just there so that I can push to and pull from them from other places on the Internet. I never use the repositories on the server, so do not need a working copy. Not having a working copy means I could use less disk space, and that I do not have to worry about accidentally making local edits. > What should we do? I think allowing a --no-working-directory option would be okay. Since there are not pristine trees under darcs2 repositories, there is not much reason to have the --no-pristine-tree option in darcs2, except for cloning a darcs1 repository. (All of my repositories are still darcs1 format, so it might be possible for someone to still want the --no-pristine-tree option, though I personally am unlikely to need it.) -kolibrie _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
