[darcs-users] annotate output
d.love at liverpool.ac.uk
Tue Sep 14 10:00:11 UTC 2010
Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 14:51:16 +0200, Petr Rockai wrote:
>> > I just saw the disjointed thread about this in Gmane, but I can't find a
>> > description of what's actually proposed for annotate. Could someone
>> > point me at it (e.g. as a message id, if it was posted here)?
> See also http://bugs.darcs.net/issue25
The timestamp in that git format looks longer than necessary, which
takes extra space but, more importantly, it's not in UTC. Also it's not
clear to me that I can find the relevant patch name easily, as I can
with Peter's format.
> Unfortunately, I had not done a good job of making it clear that
> the proposed git-blame style UI was the proposed way of going
> forward. I don't have particularly strong feelings anyway, just
> as long as we have good reasons for picking what we finally go
Right. I hope a real example of practice is useful.
> Folks who would like to weigh in are more than welcome -- we need your
> perspective -- but please and take take stock of what has already been
> said to help us avoid going around in circles.
>From the point of view of using this in Emacs VC, I think I want:
* A format that's trivial to parse, probably in a fixed format like the
original one from CVS -- don't make me parse XML or YAML;
* Something that's easily distinguishable from the previous format,
though doing an initial `darcs --version' is probably OK for that;
* Information that gives me the patch timestamp, author, and name
without having to run darcs for each one in the file. I think Peter's
initial table in the human-readable version is OK for that, but I
haven't looked at implementing it yet.
By the way, the current implementation of the Emacs support is at
<http://www.loveshack.ukfsn.org/emacs/vc-darcs.el>, but probably moving
More information about the darcs-users