Darcs "get" does not download the "_darcs/prefs/email" preference. Maybe I'm
misunderstanding the manual here, but this behavior seems wrong. IMHO, the
default email for darcs "send" should follow the repository around like the
"defaultrepo" preference.

This happens with both darcs 2.* and darcs 1.0.9.

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:23:53AM -0000, Ben Coburn wrote:
> Darcs "get" does not download the "_darcs/prefs/email" preference. Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding the manual here, but this behavior seems wrong. IMHO, the
> default email for darcs "send" should follow the repository around like the
> "defaultrepo" preference.

I disagree.  Since the 'email' pref is retrieved from the remote repo when
you say "I want to send to this remote repo", having the email pref follow
you around would result in things like this:

echo "foo@bar.com" > trunk/_darcs/prefs/email
darcs get trunk local
darcs get local work
cd work
<do stuff>
darcs send
<darcs looks at local's email pref, and sends the patch to trunk's e-mail
address>

Which means that the patch ends up in trunk, and not in local, which isn't
what's expected.  What's more, repeated sends will say "ooh, I need to send
this patch" when it'll just get ignored by the actual repo that the patch is
being applied to because it's already been applied.

The current behaviour ultimately makes a lot more sense, IMO.  This is even
despite that fact that I use multi-level repos like you're proposing, to
allow me to do a darcs send while offline (or make it quicker when I'm
online) -- I have a local 'trunk' that is a replica of the main upstream
repo, with the upstream's e-mail address in the 'email' pref.  Despite it's
utility, I don't think it should be the default behaviour, because it
requires a lot more thought on my part to track where patches are and need
to be moved to.  Making it the default would just confuse people.

- Matt
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
darcs-devel@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel

That last post here wasn't actually from me, but from Matt, I just bounced it to
the bug tracker.  Anyhow, I agree with him.  email is like motd, it's a
repository-specific setting.  If I get your repository, there's no reason why
someone sending patches to my repository should email them to you.

David

On Feb 4, 2008, at 07:28, David Roundy wrote:

> That last post here wasn't actually from me, but from Matt, I just  
> bounced it to the bug tracker.  Anyhow, I agree with him.  email 
> is like motd, it's a repository-specific setting.  If I get your 
> repository, there's no reason why someone sending patches to my 
> repository should email them to you.
>


Actually, I agree with everyone that the current behavior is correct  
(but I have a small suggestion[1]).... Turns out I just did not  
understand how darcs was looking up the correct email address when  
doing a "darcs send".

To make sure I've go this right.... When doing a "darcs send", darcs  
retrieves the email address stored in the default repository (most  
recently pushed or pulled from, without --no-set-default) and then  
uses that address for the "darcs send".


[1] I think what prompted me to misunderstand this to begin with, was  
that "darcs send -o" does not display the email address that "darcs  
send" would have used. This forces users who can only "darcs send -o"  
to manually look up the email address, possibly from a non-standard  
location in project documentation, which can get out of sync with  
darcs. IMHO, before "darcs send -o" finishes it should print the email  
address to which the user is expected to send the patch.


Regards, Ben Coburn

On Feb 4, 2008, at 07:28, David Roundy wrote:

>
>
> That last post here wasn't actually from me, but from Matt, I just  
> bounced it to
> the bug tracker.  Anyhow, I agree with him.  email is like motd,  
> it's a
> repository-specific setting.  If I get your repository, there's no  
> reason why
> someone sending patches to my repository should email them to you.
>

Actually, I agree with everyone that the current behavior is correct  
(but I have a small suggestion[1]).... Turns out I just did not  
understand how darcs was looking up the correct email address when  
doing a "darcs send".

To make sure I've go this right.... When doing a "darcs send", darcs  
retrieves the email address stored in the default repository (most  
recently pushed or pulled from, without --no-set-default) and then  
uses that address for the "darcs send".

[1] I think what prompted me to misunderstand this to begin with, was  
that "darcs send -o" does not display the email address that "darcs  
send" would have used. This forces users who can only "darcs send -o"  
to manually look up the email address, possibly from a non-standard  
location in project documentation, which can get out of sync with  
darcs. IMHO, before "darcs send -o" finishes it should print the email  
address to which the user is expected to send the patch.

Regards, Ben Coburn

I agree with the revised "wish" that "darcs send -o" also provide the e-mail of
the remote repo, realizing the language would need to be different...it would
just be factually  reporting the address, insteading of claiming that an e-mail
has been sent there.

Bumping to 2.5

The following patch updated the status of issue643 to be resolved:

* Resolve issue643 darcs send -o outputs remote repo email address 
Ignore-this: ba9b2380b2e327f45a2ae038fad2d3e3

The following patch updated the status of issue643 to be resolved-in-stable:

* Resolve issue643 darcs send -o outputs remote repo email address 
Ignore-this: ba9b2380b2e327f45a2ae038fad2d3e3