[darcs-users] darcs patch: Ignore junk more conservatively. (and 1 more)
dagit at codersbase.com
Wed Oct 8 21:37:59 UTC 2008
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:24 PM, zooko <zooko at zooko.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2008, at 15:01 PM, Jason Dagit wrote:
> One final note, I would prefer if the user-defined attributes had their
>> own place in the patch format, but I seem to be the only person who feels
>> strongly about it. So, I guess putting it into the comment field is OK for
> I would, too. They are not, to my mind, "comments" or parts of comments.
> However, older versions of darcs (including, I suppose, darcs 2.1.0) would
> fail if asked to process a patch which had an unrecognized header...
> Wouldn't it?
> I haven't tested this or read the relevant source code -- I just assumed
> that it is true.
As far as I know this is true yes. On the other hand, I don't know how we
deal with introducing new patch types either. I don't really understand why
we get so hung up making sure older darcs understands newer darcs. I can
understand the other direction as being important. I think we're over
constraining ourselves if we worry about compatibility in both directions.
We have to manage risk and weigh trade offs, and here is a place where I
think ensuring older darcs understands newer darcs is not as important as
the proposal under consideration. My understanding is that, we have a
chance to break forwards compatibility to make the patch format more
With all that said, I'd rather see people working on performance issues and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the darcs-users