[darcs-devel] darcs patch: Move rollback to another section of TheCommands.
David Roundy
droundy at darcs.net
Thu Jan 17 15:54:03 UTC 2008
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> Excerpts from David Roundy's message of Thu Jan 17 16:36:16 +0100 2008:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 12:56:42PM +0000, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > > Thu Jan 17 13:53:40 CET 2008 nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com
> > > * Move rollback to another section of TheCommands.
> >
> > Content-Description: A darcs patch for your repository!
> > >
> > > New patches:
> > >
> > > [Move rollback to another section of TheCommands.
> > > nicolas.pouillard at gmail.com**20080117125340] {
> > > hunk ./src/Darcs/TheCommands.lhs 71
> > > Group_name "Direct modification of the repository:",
> > > Command_data tag,
> > > Command_data setpref,
> > > - Command_data rollback,
> > > Group_name "Querying the repository:",
> > > Command_data diff_command,
> > > Command_data changes,
> > > hunk ./src/Darcs/TheCommands.lhs 81
> > > Group_name "Copying patches between repositories with working copy update:",
> > > Command_data pull,
> > > Command_data obliterate, Hidden_command unpull,
> > > + Command_data rollback,
> > > Command_data push,
> > > Command_data send,
> > > Command_data apply,
> >
> > This doesn't seem quite right, as rollback doesn't copy patches between
> > repositories. But then, neither does obliterate. :( I'm not sure how to
> > best improve the organization here.
>
> It seems that obliterate, unpull and rollback deserve their own section :)
Yeah, that would be reasonable. Something like "Undoing previously
recorded changes"? And maybe we could move unrecord into the same section?
It makes sense keeping it next to record, but doesn't make so much sense
for it to be far from obliterate.
--
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University
More information about the darcs-devel
mailing list