[darcs-users] darcs patch: Use index-based diffing in Record. (and 57 more)

Ganesh Sittampalam ganesh at earth.li
Mon Sep 14 21:03:11 UTC 2009

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Eric Kow wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 23:11:03 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:

>> As Petr says  below, there are some quite significant points of
>> disagreement that remain between us over a few aspects of the overall
>> design, but those shouldn't obscure the essential success of his work,
>> and I would be willing to sign off on the current state of things,
>> albeit somewhat reluctantly.
> Thanks.  So we have a last resort, but let's try to maximise our
> happiness with the code first.

Hmm. Actually, after looking at things again after a while today, I have 
to partially withdraw this - sorry!

As things stand (and as I understand it), readDarcsPristine in 
Storage.Hashed.Darcs knows how to *read* the darcs pristine root pointer 
and also how to read plain pristine for old-fashioned repos. However the 
knowledge of how to do the writing is left in darcs itself. This 
disconnect is asking for trouble, IMO.

The two things should be in the same place. And because the pristine root 
pointer lives in the hashed_inventory which hashed-storage also (rightly) 
knows nothing more about, I think that same place really has to be darcs.

> Petr/Ganesh: since this seems like a bit of a toss-up, how would you
> feel about the decision coming from a third party?  For example, perhaps
> we could solicit Nicolas Pouillard's opinion as a potential non-darcs
> hashed-storage user and go with what he suggests?

I don't think it makes sense to just delegate the decision to a single 
third party, but I would be happy to defer to the collective wisdom of any 
darcs or other hackers that take an interest.

> It sounds like the only real sticking point that needs a concrete action
> is the test suite.
> Ganesh: elaborating on your offer.  If you could provide us with an
> example or prototype of how the test suite could be generalised and
> still be useful we'd be able to wrap this up fairly quickly.  For
> example, could we move the current hashed-storage suite into the
> darcs-specific package and then have some fairly simple sanity checks
> for hashed-storage proper?

No problem, I'll work on that asap.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list