[darcs-users] Colin Walters blogs on Arch changesets vs Darcs

[David Roundy]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 09:53:15PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> [ A friend pointed me to the response on this list, so I just
> subscribed ]
> 
> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 19:16 -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Colin Walters wrote:
> > > I mentioned in my previous blog entry about revision control that I
> > > thought that the Arch model of changesets which are independent of
> > > project history is crucial. But why is that?
> > [snip]
> > > And as I mentioned before, an Arch changeset is basically just a
> > > super-patch that handles binary files and renames. If projects include
> > > just a bit of constant-sized metadata in their tarballs, the logcial
> > > file identity, you can run tla mkpatch old-tree new-tree to generate a
> > > changeset between those two trees. You do not need access to the Arch
> > > repository.
> > 
> > This could be done with darcs: Publish the "darcs changes --context" in
> > the tarball,
> 
> From a look at the manual, it looks to me like that would involve
> shipping your entire history around in every single tarball you release.
> Do you truly think that is a practical solution?

No, actually if you tag your release before making the tarball, the
"context" you'd have to ship would consist of something like

[TAG 1.0.0
David Roundy <droundy at abridgegame.org>**20041108111509]

However, in order to implement Andrew's idea, you'd also need to ship a
list of which files are actually in the repository, since often tarballs
include generated files that aren't under version control.
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.darcs.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20041120/ac37b91c/attachment.pgp