[darcs-users] Darcs 0.9.20 bug

David Roundy droundy at abridgegame.org
Sat May 22 13:45:47 UTC 2004

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 05:36:00PM +1000, Eric Faccer wrote:
> Some of the push/pull semantics seem a bit confusing. I don't know if
> it's a bug because David mention's in the docs that 'get doesn't work
> over ssh.

I can't see where the docs say that... simple grepping didn't help.  Could
you point me to a section?

> In: 0.9.20
> $ darcs get --verbose root at localhost:/var/www/html/repos/proj
> seems to be broken, yet it works fine with 0.9.18. In 0.9.20 it only
> transfers the _darcs/ dir.

This works fine for me... can you send the output of this command?

> Now if I do a:
> $ darcs pull /var/www/html/repos/proj
> or a:
> $ darcs pull root at localhost:/var/www/html/repos/proj
> both give me:
> No remote changes to pull in!
> The ssh one does the pw check first...

What is the output of darcs whatsnew?

> In: 0.9.18
> darcs failed:  Error running external program 'ssh'

Darcs 0.9.18 had a bug leading to this unhelpful error message.  There
should be a better explanation when you get 0.9.20 working.

> Another thought,
> I read earlier about the XML-RPC binding idea. My feeling is that this
> could be very useful for people writing tools that use darcs, the right
> level would seem to be an API consistent with the darcs commands
> (eg. diff(...), record()).

This would be reasonably straightforward to implement, but won't get
written until there is someone who actually wants to create a tool that
uses darcs via such an interface.  I'm not convinced that XML-RPC has any
significant advantage over the plain old command-line interface.

> This and a std way of capturing output is something I wish for all
> command line utilities. The weakness of scripting is parsing the
> output. It could be a killer feature. If arch had this I would probably
> be using arch.

Hmmmm.  Making darcs' output parseable is definitely a good idea, but it's
awkward because there is so much output, and making it machine-parseable
will always be a secondary goal to making the output human-parseable.  Some
commands have the --xml-output option, which obviously is intended to be
machine-parseable, but those are all "repo-viewing" commands, and I think
you are referring to "repo-modifying" commands?
David Roundy

More information about the darcs-users mailing list