[darcs-users] darcs patch: making Darcs.Patch.Set comment into haddock

[Florent Becker]

David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 03:19:22PM +0200, Florent Becker wrote:
>> Wed Oct 22 14:42:30 CEST 2008  Florent Becker <florent.becker at ens-lyon.org>
>>   * making Darcs.Patch.Set comment into haddock
>>   
>>   With questions about the semantics of PatchSets.
>
> Thanks, I'll be happy to apply, but these questions I can answer
> quickly, so I'll wait until you say so before applying, in case you'd
> like to amend.
>
Ok, I'll amend, but first a couple more questions…

>> +-- Questions:
>> +--
>> +-- Does this mean that in a patch set such as @[[a b t1 c d e t2][f g
>> +-- t3] [h i]]@, t1, t2 and t3 are tags, and t2 and t3 are clean?
>
> Yes, that's precisely what it means.
>
>> +-- Can we have PatchSet with length at least 3?
>> +-- Florent
>
> Yes.  I'm not sure why you're thinking this could cause a problem.  We
> should never, however, have a PatchSet of length zero.  (Meaning that
> the smallest PatchSet should be (NilRL :<: NilRL) or [[]] in list
> terms.

I don't think it would be a problem, i was just hunting for implicit
invariants. So, to make things clear, do we cut after each clean tag?

[[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3] [h i]] and [[a b t1 c d e t2][f g t3 h i]]
represent the same repository, don't they? Is the difference between
them meaningful? Are they both likely to come up?