[darcs-devel] [patch661] Allow to amend-record patch by removing some hunks

[Eric Kow]

Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> added the comment:

Some unthought-out reactions:

 - The changes get offered in reverse order. I'll switch that to 
forwards order.

Don't we want it to behave like unrecord would?

 - Should we offer a splitter (allowing for interactive edit) like we do 
for rollback?

I *think* so, on the basis that we (at least I) think that part of what 
makes darcs friendly is few-concepts-broadly-applicable.  So I think as 
a general principle we want to have mechanisms that exist in one context 
exist in all the contexts that they make sense in.

Hope that's reasonable to want (be careful what you wish for?)

 - What should we do with --all?

Ah, so the question here is what happens when somebody types in darcs 
amend-record --unrecord --all?

One option is to treat it as synonymous for darcs unrecord, end of 
story.

Another option is to reject on the grounds that the user surely must not 
have meant --all

A third option more generally is to catch the fact that we would create 
an empty patch and then say something like "Hey, removing this change 
will create an empty patch.  Do you mean to do darcs unrecord instead?"

Am I missing options?

 - What should we do if a list of files is passed on the command-line?

What about it?  Is this a clash between how darcs amend-record and how 
darcs unrecord would behave?

__________________________________
Darcs bug tracker <bugs at darcs.net>
<http://bugs.darcs.net/patch661>
__________________________________