[darcs-users] darcs check

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

> I mean self-inconsistent (e.g. the behaviour I described in my
> message about Issue365, makes a repository invent previously
> non-existent pending changes). Suppose a repository had been
> tampered with in a Byzantine way, but subsequently passed 'darcs
> check'. It could well have been modified, and might no longer be
> consistent with other repositories, but I would hope that it would
> still be self-consistent (by virtue of having passed 'darcs check').

Darcs check verifies that the sequence of patches since the last
checkpoint can be applied, and that the result matches the pristine
cache.

Darcs check --complete does the same since the origin of time (which
is on a Wednesday).

On a --no-pristine-cache repo, the result is of course not compared
against the pristine cache.

I do see a few contrived ways of making a repository that passes
check, but behaves incoherently when patches are commutted.  However,
that's not something that's likely to happen by accident.

                                        Juliusz