[darcs-users] "inconsistent" repositories [was buggy darcs_cgi in 0.9.14.15pre-1 ?]

David Roundy droundy at jdj5.mit.edu
Mon Dec 8 11:46:31 UTC 2003


On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 10:19:08PM +1100, Tim Barbour wrote:
> Thank you very much. The repo is back in a consistent state now, and I
> did not lose any changes.

Great.

> I had one problem with a project that contains some scripts - the scripts
> lost their exec permission, and I had to chmod it back. Does darcs pay
> any attention to file permissions ?

No, it doesn't pay any attention to file permissions.  I hadn't thought
about this, and at least when I write to the working directory I should try
to preserve the execute bit.  Eventually I expect to add support for
version controling the execute bit, but it's been low priority.

> > I will definitely want to make a big warning when I release 0.9.15...
> 
> Yes. As I remarked in my earlier message, ideally darcs would be able to
> detect the situation.

Hmmmm.  I'll think about whether that might be practical.  As an interrim
measure, I could stick a "converted" file somewhere in _darcs.  I'd rather
not go with the a permantent "repo_format_version" file, since I don't plan
to ever again change the repository format in a repo-breaking way like
this.  Once 1.0 is released, if I had to make this same change, I'd simply
define a new hunk patch type (and leave the old with its existing meaning),
so there wouldn't be any breakage.  But as an interrim measure, making note
of whether a repo has been converted does sound like a good idea.

I just implemented a conversion flag file.  After the conversion is all
over, I'll remove it (before darcs 1.0).
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org




More information about the darcs-users mailing list