[darcs-devel] Any answers for IsiSetup's concerns?

David Roundy droundy at darcs.net
Thu Dec 20 11:50:08 UTC 2007

On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:14:17PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 09:29:06AM -0800, zooko wrote:
> > I know that I personally often want darcs to stop unsetting the "x"  
> > bit.  We could imagine a "permission settings" patch type and patches  
> > which say "set executable" and "set not-executable".  I know you've  
> > already said that this would make sense.  I had thought, until your  
> > recent message, that progress on this front, as well as on the  
> > symlink front, was waiting for darcs-2 patch theory to be sorted out.
> How about a general patch type that can associate various 'flags' with a
> file. patches would simply be "set <flag> on <file>" or "unset
> <flag> on <file>".
> now, flag itself can be an arbitrary string, darcs itself can interpret
> some, such as 'execute' meaning to set the execute bit. but people (or
> the darcs maintainers) will be free to extend the flag mechanism to
> other uses with an appropriate posthook and the patch format need not be
> updated.
> for instance a 'worldwritable' flag could be used without updating darcs
> and a posthook could do the appropriate chmod after pulling.
> The only issue will be namespace collision, but a wiki page and some
> conventions (like prepending local flags with 'x-') should take care of
> it in practice I would think.
> popular flags could eventually be canonized with a defined meaning.
> (such as 'execute').

This sounds elegant, but would require that darcs implement a database of
flags.  Which would be all right if a new developer were to write it, but
seems like a waste of time for an existing developer, since the only
existing use for it (the executable bit) would be much easier to implement
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University

More information about the darcs-devel mailing list