[darcs-users] unpull vs obliterate

Alex Lance alla at cyber.com.au
Fri Aug 8 09:04:50 UTC 2008


> Excerpts from Eric Y. Kow's message of Thu Aug 07 23:43:10 +0200 2008:
> > On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 14:33:56 -0700, Simon Michael wrote:
> > The most appealing option so far -- I forget whose idea this was --
> > would be to reinstate unpull as a new command that actually checks to
> > make sure that the unpulled patch still exists in defaultrepo.
> 
> That would be a good idea.


If the unpull command is to continue its life in darcs then yes that
behaviour of making it safe, so that you don't accidentally "unpull" i.e.
delete, your single copy of a local patch, appears to be desirable
functionality.

I think that another path might be to continue phasing out "unpull" and
then adding a new symmetrical command to the obliterate command called eg
"unobliterate" (deobliterate?) which allows you to rescue patches that you
have previously obliterated. 

The symmetry of having obliterate and unobliterate makes more sense to
me than having push, pull and unpull. So.. having an unobliterate command:

- would make darcs a little safer to use
- contributes to the symmetry (and thus understandability) of the commands
- would help force the abandon of "unpull" by encouraging the uptake of "obliterate"
- would allow you to nuke the text "(UNSAFE!)" from the documentation :)

Btw if an unobliterate command is added, then it probably makes sense
to rename obliterate and unobliterate, to something closer to their meaning
I think someone mentioned stash and unstash... but anyway just thinking out
loud.. 
Alex



 


More information about the darcs-users mailing list