[darcs-users] RE: Darcs 0.9.20

[Eric Faccer]

David wrote:
> 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?
>

The exact text is: "Unlike get, pull and push also work over ssh." in 
file:///usr/share/doc/darcs-docs-0.9.18/manual/node4.html
 
> > 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?

These problems were my fault. The proj/ directory is comprised of a number of 
modules, each is a directory. I did darcs add modules/*/*.c and I missed or 
ignored the 'Skipping:' message because I had not added the modules parent 
directories (modules/*).

> 
> > 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.

Cool. At least I wasn't imagining this too.

> 
> 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?

Writing a parser for a program in development can be troublesome, because 
there is no implicit contract regarding output, like there is with an API. 
But the --xml-output flag sounds like a good compromise (haven't tried it 
yet). I'll give it a whirl.

> -- 
> David Roundy
> http://www.abridgegame.org

Eric