On 9/2/2010 22:53, Petr Ročkai wrote:
5) the tests pass, although I had to remove one --xml
For point 5, I don't think we should really retain annotate --xml. My guess is
that a simple regular language would be much better for both us and darcs-using
tools. At least Lele (tracdarcs) agrees. The proposed format (to be
implemented) is
<patch-hash> | line of text
<patch-hash> | another line
...
which is much easier to parse than the XML and also avoids the validity issues
(since we currently don't have code that'd enable us to generate actual valid
XML).
Hmm... I'm not sure removing --xml is a good idea in the long-term. No
matter how easy to parse the output is on day one, it isn't guaranteed
to stay that way and eventually you get into compatibility fights
between those that wish to keep the output parse-able (particularly with
older tools) and those that want "prettier" output for humans. That is
never a good place to end up.
Honestly, I think the best course of action would be to find the
appropriate haskell library to do XML output correctly. However, I'd be
up for discussing the possibility of another markup format in its stead.
For instance, --json-output might be a good compromise that can be
easier to produce valid output than XML.
--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
