[darcs-devel] darcs patch: add test for replace that messes with un... (and 3 more)

[David Roundy]

On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:01:33PM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote:
> > Ah, I misread your example.  You're right, that this different from what
> > I was talking about.  On the other hand, this case looks like someone has
> > just done a manual --force, which is perfectly reasonable.  So I'm still in
> > favor of this code, although your objection now makes more sense.
> 
> Yeah, I figured it might be safe from a darcs-internals point of view.
> I'll push it sometime this week or maybe this weekend.  That said, would
> it work as a solution to just remove the
>    isJust (apply_to_slurpy (tokreplace f toks old new) work)
> since the pristine cache check is all that we really need?

Right, that would give the behavior you've described, but I prefer our
current behavior, which I think is rather more intuitive.
-- 
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/attachments/20070129/2a68f180/attachment.pgp