[darcs-users] a couple of features (logs & managing patches)

[David Roundy]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:22:27AM +0200, Ivan Stankovic wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:00:03AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> > Obviously the --delete-logfile would address your concern about
> > accidentally re-using a logfile.
> > 
> > If we make --logfile=foo simply be ignored if --foo doesn't exist, then
> > you could safely add this to your defaults, without restricting
> > yourself to always create a logfile.
> > 
> > If we make --edit-long-comments have the result (when combined with of
> > the comments, which I personally would find valuable.  This would imply
> > changing the behavior of the --edit-long-comments option, in that it
> > would presumably allow you to edit the patch name, as --logfile does,
> > with the patch name being the first line.
> >
> > The only additional feature that people seem likely to want is the
> > ability to flag part of the --edit-long-comments file as ignored, and
> > to add a patch summary to the file before it pops up in the editor, so
> > you can see what you're recording.
> 
> Sounds nice, definitely an improvement.  I also like Andrew's rerecord
> idea, but somehow I think I wouldn't feel easy "changing history" so
> often (I got the impression that rerecord is best used only on
> "emergency" situations, like when you forgot to add an important
> change... but maybe I got it wrong)

Well, it's hard to say what rerecord should be used for.  That was what it
was originally created for, but people keep thinking of new ways to use
commands, and sometimes that can even change what is perceived as the
"primary" use of a command.  When I started on rerecord, I thought it would
just be equivalent to unrecord followed by record, with the major benefit
being that you wouldn't have to enter the patch name a second time.  But
when implementing it, I realized we don't have to prompt for the
already-recorded changes, which turned out to be the biggest advantage of
rerecord...

But I agree, for just entering in log information, I'd rather not use
rerecord, since it *is* technically an unsafe command, in that if a
rerecorded patch had already been pulled from your repo, you could cause
all sorts of nasty conflicts.  On the other hand, adding the feature of
editing the comments and/or name on rerecord is probably a good idea, since
there are "emergency" type situations where you just forgot to mention
something in the long comment, and would like to add it without unrecording
and selecting all the changes again.
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org