[darcs-devel] darcs 2.16 TODOs

Ganesh Sittampalam ganesh at earth.li
Mon Jul 20 23:09:27 UTC 2020

On 20/07/2020 01:22, Ben Franksen wrote:

> There is one more point wrt rebase. I remember you sent two more patches
> attached to one of our long discussions about the three rebase variants,
> one with a test and one that changes the order of the force commutes on
> unsuspend, which definitely improved the behavior with conflicted
> suspended patches. I am not sure these were ever screened and I think
> they should go into 2.16.

Thanks for the reminder. I think it was patch2020 and indeed it appears
never to have been screened.

>From what I remember that's ok to go in as-is but I would have to look
through again to be completely sure.

> Sorry for that! I was already thinking about marking patches as "should
> / should not go into 2.16". I think I will stop sending patches that
> aren't intended for 2.16 until we are ready for release. Note that the
> last 8 or so patches are all quite simple follow-ups on your review. I
> can self-accept them if that helps.

It's fine if you want to, though most of my time goes in reading the
more complicated patches so it's unlikely to make much difference.

In general if you do want to make progress and I appear to be
hibernating again it is also fine to self-accept more complicated
patches after waiting a while. But I hope we can get 2.16 over the line

> There is one patch on the tracker that I haven't screened yet because it
> introduces a changes in behavior and I wanted to give you time to
> consider that properly. This bundle also contains fixes to the output of
> rebase commands when used interactively. That makes me think it should
> perhaps go into 2.16. I do think the behavior changes are an
> improvement, but if you disagree or want to postpone the decision I
> think I could break out the refactors and the fixes.

This is patch2055? Apologies, I thought your plan was just to run with
it locally for a while before screening. If you're also waiting for
comments from me I will try to take a look soon.

>>>> - document "darcs-3" format appropriately so that people don't use it by
>>>> mistake
>>> It's good you thought about that one, I agree this is important. But
>>> perhaps we should make this change (only) on branch-2.16?
>> I think it should happen on the trunk. That way we have to make an
>> explicit decision to make darcs-3 format visible and it won't slip into
>> 2.18 by mistake if still not finalised then.
> Okay, makes sense.
> Where/how do you think this should be documented? I think the only way
> to produce a darcs-3 repo now is by using 'darcs init --darcs-3', so
> perhaps this would be the right place?
> Do you think we should also add a warning when this command is invoked?

Yes, I think both would make sense.

Do we intend to maintain backwards compatibility? Or should we warn
people that their darcs-3 repos might in principle be broken by future
changes? I'd be in favour of the latter to give us maximum freedom.


More information about the darcs-devel mailing list