[darcs-users] patch metadata, annotations, Ignore-this, tagging, etc

[Eric Kow]

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:41:33 -0700, Jason Dagit wrote:
> I guess I would add to all of that, something we did in the past was to add
> support for a new format now but do not enable it until much later.  This
> can be attractive because then support for it could exist in something like
> Debian Stable by the time it becomes the default.

This is a useful trick (for example, if we need to introduce new style
format files for repositories by Darcs 2.6)

> > > It seems like MIME would work best for optional
> > > attributes that can be expressed in just a few lines.
> >
> > Is this a long-term insight or a medium-term one?

> I don't know.  It just seems like the way things ought to be in the ideal
> world.  What do you think?

I think my question was if this was the sort of thing we'd want to try
to fit into the current long-patch-comment-stuffing scheme.

> > This would be http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1096

> > Looking at the thread, I think you were put off by the two replies to
> > this -- not well-defined and wishlist (not urgent) [David] and let's be
> > cautious about how we deal with patch formats [Eric], but IMHO, I would
> > not qualify these as resistance.

> I looked (and looked) but I can't find the thread in the archives anymore.
> The argument I was given is that because repositories are tagged with their
> capabilities and darcs format version that there is no need to version the
> patch bundle.  Essentially it's that patches/bundles only exist in the
> context of their repository.  Which is true.  I think in practice though,
> sometimes people forget or loss track of those repositories and still want
> to work with the patch bundle.

Patch bundle versions were confirmed as a potentially useful thing in
that bug above, so my past self forked that ticket into
http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1099

If you could turn your remark into a something a little more concrete
(ie. showing how the patch bundle format would help them), I can update
the ticket accordingly

Thanks!

-- 
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: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100323/09710f6f/attachment.pgp>