Hello Florent, My 2 cents: I believe the bug belongs in how we interpret _darcs/format.
The convention of having lines that contain alternatives is abused at the moment we write things like "hashed|no-working-dir", since it does not make sense for a darcs client to understand "no-working-dir" and not "hashed". From the beginning we interpret "hashed|no-working-dir" as "hashed support is necessary to read, and hashed and no-working-dir support is necessary to write". So, what about agreeing to interpret _darcs/format lines "A|B|..|X" as: A is necessary to read the repos, and A, B ... to X are necessary to write to it? This change of semantic could go into 2.5.1, in the same time that your "resolve issue1978" patch, to fix the "minced|no-working-dir" case. (The function Darcs.Repository.Format.readProblem would have to be modified). Otherwise, keeping the current semantics of _darcs/format, I believe a variant of (c) would be the best solution by writing minced minced|no-working-dir Which sort of "encodes" my proposed semantics in the current interpretation of _darcs/format. Guillaume _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
