[darcs-users] Project too big for conversion from hashed to darcs-2

Vincent Zweije vincent at zweije.nl
Mon Jun 7 11:45:13 UTC 2010

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:

||  On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 10:44:44 +0200, Vincent Zweije wrote:
||  > I have a project with several branches, all optimize --upgrade'd to
||  > hashed format.
||  OK, so my knee-jerk reaction whenever somebody mentions upgrading to
||  Darcs 2 is to trot out this page,
||    http://wiki.darcs.net/FAQ#should-i-convert-my-repository-to-the-darcs-2-format
||  (which seems less necessary since you've already gone to hashed and
||  still want to go further, which I assume means is a conscious/informed
||  choice)

Well, conscious, yes, but informed... I remember having read that,
but I forgot.

Considering that darcs-2 format is a newer format I would expect support
for the old, hashed format to go away eventually. Hence the wish to

Looking at the FAQ ansser, I notice it is not entirely consistent:

    Upgrading all the way to the Darcs 2 format could be worthwhile if
    conflicts are a big problem in your team. On the one hand, merging
    some kinds of conflicts is much easier and faster with this new

These are both arguments to upgrade, so why does it say "On the other

Presumably the bugs in darcs-2 format should eventually be resolved,
so they're at best an argument to delay conversion (but making it
thereby harder).

    It's a tradeoff!

Apart from the upgrade effort, what's being traded?

||  > Unfortunately, I'm stuck here. I'd like to convert to darcs-2, but the
||  > branches have numerous conflicts. The standard recipe (tag branches,
||  > merge, convert, split out into branches again) is not going to work:
||  > the merge has been running over the weekend and shows no sign of progres.
||  >
||  > Is there any other way to get there from here?
||  >
||  >
||  > Tangentially related: the branches are tracked subversion
||  > repositories. I've noticed that updates to changelog files, which are
||  > kept in subversion in the different branches, are *always* conflicting
||  > between branches. This is probably typical of changelog files, and an
||  > interesting insight in itself.
||  Is this perhaps the ChangeLog problem?
||  http://bugs.darcs.net/issue674

Ah, yes. Never believe you're the first one to discover something. :-P

||  > At some point in the past I've taken to recording any change to a
||  > changelog file in a separate patch, so it can be excluded when copying
||  > patches between the darcs branches. Perhaps there's a trick to exclude
||  > the changelog files from the conversion and so greatly reduce the number
||  > of conflicts, making the merge manageable again?
||  Perhaps.  Could the 'touch' matcher be used to good effect here?
||  You may have to manually rebase the ChangeLog patches after the
||  fact.

I'm sure I'll get there, if only by manually composing the list of
patches to obliterate.

Musing... I'll be losing the tags in the conversion as well. They're
not that many though.

Maybe I'll delay that upgrade, or just try to see if it works without
the changelog.

Anyway, thanks for the response.                                Vincent.
Vincent Zweije <zweije at xs4all.nl>    | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/>      | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] |            -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100607/8c302ff5/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list