[darcs-devel] darcs patch: test: Exibit a falling test about rollback.
Nicolas Pouillard
nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 09:20:31 UTC 2008
Excerpts from David Roundy's message of Thu Jan 10 19:01:00 +0100 2008:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 06:23:56PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > Excerpts from David Roundy's message of Thu Jan 10 18:08:59 +0100 2008:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:43:40PM +0000, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > > > Mon Jan 7 16:02:24 CET 2008 nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
> > > > * test: Exibit a falling test about rollback.
> > > > Indeed the only test about rollback was br0ken by a prior test that creates a
> > > > directory and remove read permissions to it. The rollback test do some
> > > > records that silently fail by lack of permissions, finally the rollback is
> > > > cancelled since the named patch doesn't exist.
> > > > This shows that rollback need some care.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the patch!
> > >
> > > I've actually been debating the idea of removing the rollback command.
> > > It's poorly implemented, and has been a source of confusion and problems.
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > The source of problems was about hidden conflicts, right?
> > It's no longer a problem in darcs2, right?
> >
> > It's mainly a common use case when can no longer use amend-record.
> >
> > I think that's also a great tool to temporarily revert a patch without having
> > two repositories.
> >
> > Moreover this kind of operation is waited when one know that patches must be
> > invertible.
>
> The problem is that it's a pretty limited and counterintuitive command.
> You can't (currently) rollback a patch if there is a patch that depends on
> it which has been rolled back already. And it doesn't affect the working
> directory, which makes certain things much easier (e.g. no need to deal
> with conflicts), but doesn't match what most folks actually want to do.
> Also, you can't add a note indicating *why* a patch was rolled back, which
> is a pretty big downside.
>
> Having just chatted on this subject with a friend who walked by my office,
> I think what I'll do is implement a modified rollback that will allow you
> to undo more than one named patch at a time, and will make those changes in
> the working directory as well as recording them, and will allow you to
> provide a description of why you're rolling the change back... and will
> also (maybe not in the first draft) allow you to roll back just a subset of
> the primitive changes in those patches. I think this'll be more useful and
> also easier to implement.
This seems a pretty good direction.
--
Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai
More information about the darcs-devel
mailing list