[darcs-devel] darcs patch: fail on error in get_patches_beyond_tag. (and 6 more)

[David Roundy]

I'm mostly just replying to this message to bring it to the attention of
readers, who might not find the subject-line very interesting.  I believe
the hashed inventory code is finally in a state where wider testing will be
useful, and where contributions from other developers than myself will be
practical, so if you're at all interested, pipe up!

David

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:50:22AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This is a big bundle of all the changes I've made this week.  The net
> result is that hashed inventories now pass the complete test suite.  I
> haven't yet run any testing with combo repositories that have both a hashed
> and an old-fashioned inventory.  That comes next.
> 
> But at this point, when working by themselves, hashed inventories pass the
> entire test suite, and I'd encourage interested persons to start testing
> them.  If you find a bug, it's something that isn't tested in the test
> suite, and adding it to the test suite will be a *very* good thing to do.
> 
> Another feature that would be interesting to add now would be lazily
> partial repositories.  With the hashed inventory, we should be able to
> relatively easily make a repository that will download the patches lazily
> (as they are required), but then cache them.  This should solve most (all?
> many?) of the issues the ghc folks have been having with partial
> repositories.
> 
> Also, it would be good to have a "check hash" mode that verifies that the
> patch files actually have the hash their filename promises.  And darcs
> check should also always verify this, for hashed repositories.
> 
> David