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

Vincent Zweije vincent at zweije.nl
Mon Jun 7 13:03:27 UTC 2010


On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:15:07PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:

||  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
||     enough.
||
||     +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
||     | 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           |
||     +--------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

Fair enough, the info is there, and a table provides a nice visible
overview.

I'd say, put the left top against the right bottom, and the left middle
against the right top.

||     [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

What I take away from link [2] (without spending an inordinate amount of
time) is no more than "darcs-1 (the program) has a bug we're not fixing".

Ciao.                                                            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/d9223a7f/attachment.pgp>


More information about the darcs-users mailing list