[darcs-users] domains: a proposal for composing repositories

Jamie Webb j at jmawebb.cjb.net
Thu Feb 2 18:56:34 UTC 2006


On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 06:31:08PM +0100, Albert Reiner wrote:
> > however, you raise a good point that perhaps we should give the main
> > domain a name
> 
> Well, what about the name being an empty string?  I can see people
> wanting to use any name you might come up with.

Bad idea. Empty command arguments cause quoting headaches under
various circumstances. If want something meaningless like that, I'd go
for '.'. But really 'main' doesn't seem to burdonsome.

> But disjointness is not at all necessary, except for the particular
> purpose you have in mind.  What would disjointness bring you with,
> e.g., restricting the tokens a `darcs replace` acts on?  The concept
> of a domain seems much more general than that of a means of avoiding
> `poison' patches, and only those require disjointness.

I think 'replace' depends on every file it modifies, thus it is just
as poisonous as any other patch. This is the trouble in general with
trying to intersect domains or anything fancy like that. David has
previously said that breaking up a patch is probably infeasible, so I
don't think anything beyond domains plus domain unions can be made to
work.

-- Jamie Webb




More information about the darcs-users mailing list