The flip-side for maintainability is that darcs-bridge etc will diverge from darcs. Perhaps that's ok.
Aside from that, the main concern I have is that darcs-fastexport does the wrong thing with conflicts - you lose information, because it just recreates pristine after each patch, rather than producing a proper merge. Baking that into darcs means we're effectively adopting broken behaviour. On the other hand I haven't really heard of anyone noticing this in exported repositories and perhaps something is better than nothing. On 21/12/2013 17:52, Eric Kow wrote: > Sounds like a good way to encourage pushing as much functionality as > possible into libraries (to avoid the code duplication). > > No suggestions for the UI, except perhaps to rework the darcs convert > command slightly. > > Surprised that importing should be harder than exporting. > > > On 18 December 2013 15:11, Guillaume Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to suggest that darcs should provide built-in, one-time >> fast-export output. >> >> Let me explain why we would want this, and why only the export direction: >> >> - narrative for darcs 2.10: a built-in fast-export feature fits in a >> narrative that presents darcs as a system that people can try knowing >> they are free to switch to another tool without much work. I hope that >> it would lower the resistance to trying it. >> >> - maintainability: every now and then people pop up on IRC asking for >> the code of darcs-bridge, or saying that it does not build. (Granted, >> this happens with low frequency). With darcs providing natively a >> fast-export output we fix this situation for the export direction. >> >> - implementation easiness: we already have a couple of implementations >> ([1], [2]). After all fast-export without marks support is just a >> fancy `darcs log -v`. On the other hand, fast-import is much more >> complex (to begin with, it is not read-only) and still an open >> problem, AFAIK. >> >> >> I'm not sure if the best way to provide this feature would be `darcs >> log --fast-export`, or a new command like `darcs fast-export`. The >> former would convey the idea that the output is for a one-time use >> only, without marks support, with no garantee of being the same if >> history if reordered, etc. But if we want to support incremental >> export, then it gets more complicated that a fancy `darcs log` output, >> and probably deserves a separate command. >> >> I'd be happy with a minimal but working export support, with more >> feature-rich export/import tool being separated from darcs. >> >> Code duplication between seems smelly, but I think we are not talking >> about much code (between 125 lines in Petr's fastconvert [1] which >> would be what we would use, and 600 lines in Owen's darcs-bridge which >> is more complicated [2]). >> >> Opinions? >> >> Guillaume >> >> [1] http://repos.mornfall.net/darcs-fastconvert/Export.hs >> [2] http://hub.darcs.net/owst/darcs-bridge-export-branch/browse/Export.hs >> _______________________________________________ >> darcs-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users > > > _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
