Hi David!
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:16:16 +0200, David Roundy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:44:38PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote:
>> Well, this is not exactly what I was searching for. What if
>> someone want to set both _darcs/prefs/motd and
>> _darcs/prefs/description? Moreover, from what I could see,
>> _darcs/prefs/motd is not propagated when `darcs get`.
>
> It's intentional that motd isn't propogated on darcs get, because
> that creates a new repository, which has a new identity (e.g. the
> new repository won't be "the central darcs repository, unstable
> branch").
Sorry, my fault: I can now fully agree that _darcs/prefs/motd should
not be propagated on `darcs get`, as well as it should be for
_darcs/prefs/description.
> If description is intended to describe the contents of the
> repository, why not put it in the repository itself?
Do you mean something like $REPO/description? I don't think it
belongs in $REPO/, where README should exist and be more appropriate.
>>> Maybe this bug should be rerouted to darcsweb, to make darcsweb
>>> use the motd for its description?
>>
>> For the reasons above, I don't think darcsweb should use it.
>
> I'm not sure what your reasoning is.
Because _darcs/prefs/motd can be used for something completely
different ("hello, how are you?"), while _darcs/prefs/description will
suit only one need.
> It still seems to me like the perfect fit for darcsweb to describe a
> repository.
Even if I still prefer _darcs/prefs/description, I'll reassign this
bug to darcsweb in one week from now if no other replies in favor of
_darcs/prefs/description.
Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
