A few bits about the RCS backends
-[[toc ]]
+[[!toc ]]
## Terminology
W "belongs" to ikiwiki and should not be edited directly.
-## [darcs](http://darcs.net/) (not yet included)
+## [[darcs]]
-Support for using darcs as a backend is being worked on by [Thomas
-Schwinge](mailto:tschwinge@gnu.org), although development is on hold curretly.
-There is a patch in [[todo/darcs]].
+Regarding the repository layout: There are two darcs repositories. One is the `srcdir`, the other we'll call `master`.
-### How will it work internally?
+* HTML is generated from `srcdir`.
+* CGI edits happen in `srcdir`.
+* The backend pulls updates from `master` into `srcdir`, i.e. darcs commits should happen to `master`.
+* `master` calls ikiwiki (through a wrapper) in its apply posthook, i.e. `master/_darcs/prefs/defaults` should look like this:
-``Master'' repository R1.
+ apply posthook ikiwrap
+ apply run-posthook
-RCS commits from the outside are installed into R1.
-
-HTML is generated from R1. HTML is automatically generated (by using a
-``post-hook'') each time a new change is installed into R1. It follows
-that rcs_update() is not needed.
-
-There is a working copy of R1: R2.
-
-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 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?
-
-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
-
-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 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 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.
-
-> The mercurial plugin seems to just use one repo and edit it directly - is
-> there some reason that's okay there but not for darcs? I agree with tuomov
-> that having just the one repo would be preferable; the point of a dvcs is
-> that there's no difference between one repo and another. I've got a
-> darcs.pm based on mercurial.pm, that's almost usable... --bma
-
->> IMHO it comes down to whatever works well for a given RCS. Seems like
->> the darcs approach _could_ be done with most any distributed system, but
->> it might be overkill for some (or all?) While there is the incomplete darcs
->> plugin in [[todo/darcs]], if you submit one that's complete, I will
->> probably accept it into ikiwiki.. --[[Joey]]
+* The backend pushes CGI edits from `srcdir` back into `master` (triggering the apply hook).
+* The working copies in `srcdir` and `master` should *not* be touched by the user, only by the CGI or darcs, respectively.
## [[Git]]
command to save disk space.
Note that, as a rule of thumb, you should always put the rcs wrapper (`post-update`)
-into the master repository (`.git/hooks/`) as can be noticed in the Git wrappers of
-the sample [[ikiwiki.setup]].
+into the master repository (`.git/hooks/`).
Here is how a web edit works with ikiwiki and git:
* git-commit in the remote repository
* git-push, pushes the commit to the master repo on the server
+* (Optionally, the master repo's pre-receive hook runs, and checks that the
+ update only modifies files that the pushing user is allowed to update.
+ If not, it aborts the receive.)
* the master repo's post-update hook notices this update, and runs ikiwiki
* ikiwiki notices the modifies page source, and compiles it
## [[tla]]
+Nobody really understands how tla works. ;-)
+
## rcs
There is a patch that needs a bit of work linked to from [[todo/rcs]].
revision with conflict markers to the repository. It then returns the text to the
user for cleanup. This is less neat than it could be, in that a conflict marked
revision gets committed to the repository.
+
+## [[bzr]]
+
+## [[cvs]]