[darcs-users] [patch251] resolve issue1268: enable to write darcs init x

Radoslav Dorcik radoslav.dorcik at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 22:25:27 UTC 2010

Hello Guilllaume,

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> wrote:
> I believe here we've got a confrontation between two principles:
> - the less invasive a change the better
> - the more uniform/coherent/consistent the code the better
> Looking through the code, it seems that right now, all the commands
> check their prereqs with the commandPrereq function (and this includes
> things such as the context file existing).  There are some lightweight
> prereqs for darcs get that don't seem to get checked (for example, that
> if you say darcs get foo bar), but it seems like that could easily
> change.
> So what should we do here?  Maybe it would be good if you and Guillaume
> could work together to figure out why your (Rado)'s draft fails the test
> currently.  Also one thing to think about: how are prereqs currently
> handled and should it be improved?

only quick cross-check of my understanding of your patch:
- the Init.hs has been changed since it contains implementation of the
"darcs init" command
- commanding related code has been changed due new parameter in prereq [String]
- the amNotInRepository uses additional argument for setting working repo
- the amInRepository and all other change funnctions (e.g. findRepo)
doesn't use additional parameter ([String])

Am I right ?

It looks like that my patch (less invasive, but not very nice) somehow
causes "ignoring" --darcs-2 parameter for "darcs init" command in the
It is necessary discover which code is resposible to take into account
this --darcs-2 flag and what does it mean (since it looks to be


More information about the darcs-users mailing list