Grant Husbands wrote:
Max Battcher <[email protected]> wrote:
There is no need for a "new kind of context". ``darcs changes --context`` is
just fine. You suggest that darcs does magic when the tag at the bottom of a
context is missing, but it is fairly simple process:
It is relatively simple, yes, but insufficient. The original proposal
has it such that Darcs cannot see both of the branches/repos at the
same time and is given the context file for one as a substitute for
having access to it. When it finds that that context is insufficient,
it doesn't have an easy way of getting more. It has neither the
filename nor the content for the tag-patch or for the next inventory
down.
It is sufficient. Darcs happily works with a superposition of patches in
_darcs/patches. In fact, the global cache is merely a "super-repository"
that stores all patches (and pristine objects) that have used locally.
If one branch has a patch (or a tag), they all "have the patch" handy.
There is no such "insufficiency" that I can find that you seem to see here.
You seem to me to be under some sort of misapprehension about the way
darcs patches/inventory/contexts work. Allow me to explicitly iterate
some assumptions about how darcs works that my proposal employs:
The only things "hidden" from darcs here are:
1) Additional pristine objects and pristine root keys (branch pristine)
2) Additional inventory objects and inventory root keys (branch inventory)
Darcs will still have access to:
1) All patches across all branches (that are stored and/or cached locally)
2) The usual _darcs/prefs/sources suspects
Again, darcs doesn't do anything more during push/pull than what the
proposal suggests to do. Darcs does not have a "smarter wire protocol"
hidden somewhere other than contexts and patches. (darcs push and darcs
send really are equal citizens in darcs.)
--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
