[darcs-users] New argument for symlink support

[Jason Dagit]

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Petr Rockai <me at mornfall.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jason Dagit <dagit at codersbase.com> writes:
> > Can someone workout the rules for commuting symlink patches?  I think
> treating
> > them as files which contain a path to where they point is a reasonable
> way to
> > model them.
> just a little (side)note: please don't do the mistake of introducing a
> new patch type for something that is adequately served by addfile and
> hunk patches. At least unless you want to repeat the setpref
> debacle. (It may be that addfile will need substituting, but definitely
> be wary of hunks.) Oh, and keep in mind that if we add a new patch type,
> we are making an incompatible darcs repository format (akin to the
> darcs-2 incompatibility, although arguably less severe).
>

I've been told in the past that the way the repo formats work is that we
should be able to add new "format capabilities" by adding additional lines
to the format file with the capabilities.  A darcs that doesn't know how to
deal with the things listed in that file is supposed to give up and not
collaborate with that repository.

Overall I don't think I understand what you're getting at.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20091201/8de7ef37/attachment.htm>