On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, David Roundy wrote:
>
> I'm cc'ing you on this email, since Juliusz had some interesting ideas as
> to how darcs could interact with git, which then gave me an idea concerning
> which I'd like feedback from you. In particular, it would make life (that
> is, life interacting back and forth with git) easier if we were to embed
> darcs patches in their entirety in the git comment block.
Hell no.
The commit _does_ specify the patch uniquely and exactly, so I really
don't see the point. You can always get the patch by just doing a
git diff $parent_tree $thistree
so putting the patch in the comment is not an option.
Then you can use the patch to index to whatever extra "darcs index"
information you want to.
> As I say, it's a bit ugly, and before we explore the idea further, it would
> be nice to know if this would cause Linus to vomit in disgust and/or refuse
> patches from darcs users.
That's definitely the case. I will _not_ be taking random files etc just
to keep other peoples stuff straightened up.
If you want to add a "log ID", you can certainly do that, but the data the
ID refers to is _you_ data, and will not go into the git archive. So:
> Another slightly less noxious possibility would
> be to store the darcs patch as a "hidden" file, if git were given the
> concept of commit-specific files.
No, git will not track commit-specific files. There's the comment section,
and that _is_ the commit-specific file. But I will refuse to take any
comments that aren't just human-readable explanations, together with maybe
one extra line of
# Darcs ID: 780c057447d4feef015a905aaf6c87db894ff58c
(others will want to track _their_ PR numbers etc) and that's it. The
actual darcs data that that ID refers to can obviously be maintained in
_another_ git archive, but it's not one I'm going to carry about.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
