[darcs-devel] Re: [darcs-users] Re: Darcs check grows out of control

[Zachary P. Landau]

>
> >  I can't really tell when patches are accepted.
>
> I've got the following patches of yours in my mailbox:
>
>   - ``Do not reread freshly written patch when recording'', rejected
>     due to Ian's opposition (which I happen to disagree with, but he's
>     the better Haskell programmer); I'll accept this patch when you
>     convince Ian;
>   - three patches dated 14 Jan 2006, which I will push as soon as you
>     find a better name instead of ``--file'' (as I've mentioned, I like
>     ``--logfile'', but it's up to you, I'm only doing the complaining);
>   - ``Add -i as an alias for --interactive'', which should get in (I was
>     waiting for somebody to object, but nobody has for now).

The second and third one  sound like patches from me, not Aaron.  And
while I'm here, I might as well comment on one of them.

I am fine with using --logfile as long as people don't find it confusing.  As
I think I mentioned, it isn't really a logfile when used with send.  But maybe
reusing an option people already know is less confusing than moving things
around.  I don't really care either way, once I see the command in the help
list I can manage.  It could be
--use-the-following-file-as-input-for-the-given-command.
That's assuming DarcsArguments.lhs supports GNU very-long options.

Anyway I believe I made the logfile->file rename as a separate patch, so
you should be able to apply the rest of the patches and just leave off
that one if you prefer --file.  If you go to apply it and there are problems,
drop me a note and I'll fix it.

--
Zachary P. Landau <kapheine at gmail.com>