[darcs-users] Looks nice. Noob questions.

David Roundy droundy at abridgegame.org
Tue Jan 13 19:10:18 UTC 2004

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:10:52PM -0800, Kevin Smith wrote:
> David Roundy wrote:
> >The thing that breaks the symmetry is that usually there exist files that
> >you don't want in the repo (e.g. *.o), so automatically adding files could
> >be rather annoying.  On the other hand, if a file that was in the
> >repository no longer exists, it's pretty safe to say that the user no
> >longer wants it.
> I think the traditional solution is:
> 1. whatsnew would default to --summary (for speed)

Well, I very rarely want to use whatsnew --summary... the real solution is
to support proper inversion of options, so everyone can set their own
default as they like (and then invert it to get the opposite).  Which is
preferred would tend to depend on how often you record your changes,
i.e. how big each change is.

> 3. The boring pref would exclude almost all the files you don't want, 
> such as .o files

That would be nice... on the other hand it's also not possible that the
default boring file will do this for everyone, and it's definitely more
user-friendly to not consider "borderline" files to be boring.  For
example, I just ran a "darcs whatsnew --look-for-adds --summary" on my
darcs repo, and discovered a rather large number of non-boring files, most
of which were png and html files in the generated manual.  Much better this
way that leaving some poor web developer (who's new to darcs) wondering why
he can't add any of his files to the repository because they're all

> 2. non-boring files that are not in the repo would be listed as ? so you 
> could decide whether or not to add them

I don't think this should be the default option for speed reasons--at least
in some of my friends' repos simply recursing through all the boring
directories took a couple of minutes... I guess probably you wouldn't want
to show the contents of boring directories, so it wouldn't be so bad.

But I agree that it would be nice to be able to get this information easily
in any case, and now that I think about it, as long as we don't recurse
into boring directories there shouldn't be a big performance penalty.  You
can already get a bit of this information using darcs whatsnew --summary
--look-for-adds, and could get more by comparing that with the output of a
plain darcs whatsnew --summary, but that's definitely not convenient, so I
agree that a '?' listing (together with a flag to either enable or disable
it--or both) is definitely a good idea.
David Roundy

More information about the darcs-users mailing list