Re: Darcs and git: plan of action

[Tupshin Harper <tupshin@tupshin.com>]

Ray Lee wrote:

>it allows regular expressions for the match and replace, which means
>multiple unique tokens could change atomically. (Does anyone actually
>*use* regexes? Sounds like a cannon that'd be hard to aim.)
>  
>
Yes, and replace patches need to be used very carefully.

>Regardless, I only care about code, not free text. If it's in a language
>that doesn't do some use-'em-as-you-need-'em duck typing spiel
>(<cough>python</cough), then the context of your patch (namely, the
>file) already has those tokens somewhere in them. And I bet that if
>*you* looked at that file, you could tell if it was a replace or a mere
>textual diff. Am I wrong?
>  
>
Yes. See my hello world example from my last email.

>
>Unless I'm missing something, the darcs replace patch can already do the
>wrong thing. 
>
Yes, depending on how you define wrong. Darcs replace is fully 
predictable, and poorly chosen replaces can lead to incorrect results 
after future patches are applied.

>If I do a replace patch on a variable introduced in a local
>tree, then do a darcs replace on it before committing it to a shared
>repository, and coder B introduces a variable of the same original name
>in my copy, then there's a chance that the replace patch will
>incorrectly apply upon his newly introduced variable. No?
>  
>
Absolutely correct, and the exact reason why replace patches need to be 
used *very* selectively.

>  
>
>>It's provable that you can not.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm still not seeing the problem, at least when it comes to ANSI C.
>
>Ray
>  
>
See hello world example in my other email. You can argue that it is an 
existing problem in darcs, but really, it just points out the fact that 
a computer is *incapable* of knowing whether it is safe to use a replace 
patch based on a diff because replace patches are dangerous if not used 
intelligently.

-Tupshin