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

Eric Kow kowey at darcs.net
Mon Jun 7 12:15:07 UTC 2010

[resending due to some mailer trouble (gah, maybe I use something like
OfflineIMAP instead of mutt's native support)]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 13:45:13 +0200, Vincent Zweije wrote:
> 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
> convert.

If that's the case, I think you're better off waiting for Darcs 3.
Hashed is a pretty good format.

Darcs-2 is nice for new repositories, but I don't think it's worth the
trouble for pre-existing ones.

> 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
>     format.
> These are both arguments to upgrade, so why does it say "On the other
> hand?"

Hmm, I see how that would be confusing.  We need some help making sure
darcs users can easily understand the situation.

I've updated the wiki to try using a table instead.  What do you think?

   So should you upgrade?  It's a trade-off!  It makes sense to use the
   darcs-2 format for new repositories (the improved merging is nicer), but
   for some older repositories, just going to hashed repositories is good
   | Converting to darcs 2                | Staying with darcs 1 hashed       |
   | The Darcs 2 format does a better     | ... but the Darcs 2 format also   |
   | job at merging some common conflicts | has some important bugs dealing   |
   | (much less chance of exponential     | with duplicate patches and nested |
   | merge issues)                        | conflicts [1]                     |
   | There are some known wont-fix        |                                   |
   | bugs with Darcs 1 semantics [2] for  |                                   |
   | which the recommendation is to       |                                   |
   | upgrade to Darcs 2 format            |                                   |
   |                                      | The conversion can be difficult   |
   |                                      | and it's NOT backward compatible. |
   |                                      | There could be a tricky           |
   |                                      | transition period ahead           |
   [1] `Darcs-2 conflict handling bugs <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue?%40search_text=&title=&%40columns=title&topic=15&id=&%40columns=id&creation=&creator=&activity=&%40columns=activity&%40sort=activity&actor=&nosy=&priority=&%40group=priority&status=-1%2C1%2C2%2C3%2C4%2C5%2C6%2C16%2C17&%40columns=status&assignedto=&%40columns=assignedto&%40pagesize=50&%40startwith=0&%40queryname=&%40old-queryname=&%40action=search>`_
   [2] http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1075 ; and more
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100607/7f9bbb63/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list