[darcs-users] [patch374] the state of the adventure

Max Battcher me at worldmaker.net
Fri Sep 3 03:14:50 UTC 2010


On 9/2/2010 22:53, Petr Ročkai wrote:
> 5) the tests pass, although I had to remove one --xml
>
> For point 5, I don't think we should really retain annotate --xml. My guess is
> that a simple regular language would be much better for both us and darcs-using
> tools. At least Lele (tracdarcs) agrees. The proposed format (to be
> implemented) is
>
> <patch-hash>  | line of text
> <patch-hash>  | another line
> ...
>
> which is much easier to parse than the XML and also avoids the validity issues
> (since we currently don't have code that'd enable us to generate actual valid
> XML).

Hmm... I'm not sure removing --xml is a good idea in the long-term. No 
matter how easy to parse the output is on day one, it isn't guaranteed 
to stay that way and eventually you get into compatibility fights 
between those that wish to keep the output parse-able (particularly with 
older tools) and those that want "prettier" output for humans. That is 
never a good place to end up.

Honestly, I think the best course of action would be to find the 
appropriate haskell library to do XML output correctly. However, I'd be 
up for discussing the possibility of another markup format in its stead. 
For instance, --json-output might be a good compromise that can be 
easier to produce valid output than XML.

--
--Max Battcher--
http://worldmaker.net


More information about the darcs-users mailing list