[darcs-users] Re: darcs get, hard links, and accidental changes

[Mark Stosberg]

On 2004-10-15, David Brown <darcs at davidb.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:46:18PM +0000, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
>> I've read that 'darcs get' uses hard links on local file systems to save
>> disc space. I like that idea.
>> 
>> However, could there be a problem if you change the contents of one of
>> the hard-linked files-- would the "upstream" repo be modified as well?
>> That could be an undesirable side effect. The 'darcs get' docs are not 
>> clear on this point.
>
> The only files that are hardlinked are the darcs patch files.  You
> shouldn't ever be editing these, and darcs doesn't ever change them.

What about if I 'unrecord' a patch? The documentation indicates that
really deletes it:

"Unrecord actually removes the unrecorded patch from your repository"

[ thinks ]. OK, that won't be a problem, because it's just removing the
link.  

"Rerecord" should be the dangerous one. It's documented as:

"Rerecord will modify the date of the recorded patch. WARNING: You
should ONLY rerecord patches which only exist in a single repository!"

(Is there a typo here such that "date -> data"?)

For safety's sake, does rerecord break the link when it makes the
modification? 

I realize that this is an action that a user is warned against taking,
but I would still hate for an upstream repo to be modified because a
downstream user did something to their own repo.

	Mark

-- 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
   Mark Stosberg            Principal Developer  
   mark at summersault.com     Summersault, LLC     
   765-939-9301 ext 202     database driven websites
 . . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .