-## A few bits about the RCS backends
+A few bits about the RCS backends
-### Terminology
+[[toc ]]
+
+## Terminology
``web-edit'' means that a page is edited by using the web (CGI) interface
as opposed to using a editor and the RCS interface.
-### [[Subversion]]
+## [[Subversion]]
-Subversion was that first RCS to be supported by ikiwiki.
+Subversion was the first RCS to be supported by ikiwiki.
-#### How does it work internally?
+### How does it work internally?
Master repository M.
CGI operates on W. rcs_commit() will commit from W to M.
+For all the gory details of how ikiwiki handles this behind the scenes,
+see [[commit-internals]].
+
You browse and web-edit the wiki on W.
-### [darcs](http://darcs.net/) (not yet included)
+## [darcs](http://darcs.net/) (not yet included)
Support for using darcs as a backend is being worked on by [Thomas
Schwinge](mailto:tschwinge@gnu.org).
-#### How will it work internally?
+### How will it work internally?
``Master'' repository R1.
CGI operates on R2. rcs_commit() will push from R2 to R1.
You browse the wiki on R1 and web-edit it on R2. This means for example
-that R2 needs to be updated from R1 if you are going the web-edit a page,
+that R2 needs to be updated from R1 if you are going to web-edit a page,
as the user otherwise might be irritated otherwise...
How do changes get from R1 to R2? Currently only internally in
-rcs_commit(). Is rcs_prepedit() suitable?
+rcs\_commit(). Is rcs\_prepedit() suitable?
It follows that the HTML rendering and the CGI handling can be completely
separated parts in ikiwiki.
What repository should [[RecentChanges]] and [[History]] work on? R1?
-##### Rationale for doing it differently than in the Subversion case
+#### Rationale for doing it differently than in the Subversion case
darcs is a distributed RCS, which means that every checkout of a
repository is equal to the repository it was checked-out from. There is
no forced hierarchy.
-R1 is the nevertheless called the master repository. It's used for
+R1 is nevertheless called the master repository. It's used for
collecting all the changes and publishing them: on the one hand via the
rendered HTML and on the other via the standard darcs RCS interface.
-R2, the repository where CGI operates on, is just a checkout of R1 and
+R2, the repository the CGI operates on, is just a checkout of R1 and
doesn't really differ from the other checkouts that people will branch
off from R1.
(To be continued.)
+
+#### Another possible approach
+
+Here's what I (tuomov) think, would be a “cleaner” approach:
+
+ 1. Upon starting to edit, Ikiwiki gets a copy of the page, and `darcs changes --context`.
+ This context _and_ the present version of the page are stored in as the “version” of the
+ page in a hidden control of the HTML.
+ Thus the HTML includes all that is needed to generate a patch wrt. to the state of the
+ repository at the time the edit was started. This is of course all that darcs needs.
+ 2. Once the user is done with editing, _Ikiwiki generates a patch bundle_ for darcs.
+ This should be easy with existing `Text::Diff` or somesuch modules, as the Web edits
+ only concern single files. The reason why the old version of the page is stored in
+ the HTML (possibly compressed) is that the diff can be generated.
+ 3. Now this patch bundle is applied with `darcs apply`, or sent by email for moderation…
+ there are many possibilities.
+
+This approach avoids some of the problems of concurrent edits that the previous one may have,
+although there may be conflicts, which may or may not propagate to the displayed web page.
+(Unfortunately there is not an option to `darcs apply` to generate some sort of ‘confliction resolution
+bundle’.) Also, only one repository is needed, as it is never directly modified
+by Ikiwiki.
+
+This approach might be applicable to other distributed VCSs as well, although they're not as oriented
+towards transmitting changes with standalone patch bundles (often by email) as darcs is.
+
+## [[Git]]
+
+Regarding the Git support, Recai says:
+
+I have been testing it for the past few days and it seems satisfactory. I
+haven't observed any race condition regarding the concurrent blog commits
+and it handles merge conflicts gracefully as far as I can see.
+
+As you may notice from the patch size, GIT support is not so trivial to
+implement (for me, at least). Being a fairly fresh code base it has some
+bugs. It also has some drawbacks (especially wrt merge which was the hard
+part). GIT doesn't have a similar functionality like 'svn merge -rOLD:NEW
+FILE' (please see the relevant comment in mergepast for more details), so I
+had to invent an ugly hack just for the purpose.
+
+## [mercurial](http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/)
+
+Being worked on by Emanuele Aina.
+
+<http://techn.ocracy.org/ikiwiki>