Commented #bea/110/781# on why I'm not supporting Arch.child(revision)

2 files changed, 25 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/body b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/body
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df5b8c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/body
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+> The situation is worse than just the old `be merge` effects, because
+> the existence, children, and parents of a particular UUID may be
+> revision dependent.  A UUID will always refer to the same
+> bugdir/bug/comment, but that bugdir/bug/comment may have different
+> relatives.
+
+I'm not sure how to support .children(revision) in the Arch backend
+or the older versions of Darcs without checking out a pristine tree
+for the revision in question.  That's how we used to support
+  BugDir.duplicate_bugdir()
+but it doesn't fit well with the new Storage system.  Since I don't
+feel strongly about tla or old Darcs support, I'm leaving that
+functionality unimplemented.
+
diff --git a/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/values b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/values
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d21650d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.be/bea86499-824e-4e77-b085-2d581fa9ccab/bugs/1100c966-9671-4bc6-8b68-6d408a910da1/comments/7812d2e5-9d4b-4621-b071-22e91e8757d2/values
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Author: W. Trevor King <wking@drexel.edu>
+
+
+Content-type: text/plain
+
+
+Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:20:06 +0000
+
+
+In-reply-to: 3646e056-a2df-46e5-b877-88608c7cc5af
+