[darcs-users] big-patches problem!
Isaac Dupree
isaacdupree at charter.net
Tue Dec 23 23:45:15 UTC 2008
Gwern Branwen wrote:
> There's no winning, is there. :( One big patch doesn't commute, and a
> lot of little patches pollutes the history, and mixing it into other
> changes is unclear.
"pollutes the history" is an excuse that bothers me. Why?
Because the only effect is on user-interface things that we
could easily change, such as `darcs changes`. Maybe when
you make a patch bundle there should be some way to specify
that all the patches do the same thing and should normally
be shown as just one entry in the history. Either we'd need
to have an explicit way to mark that "same thing" concept
(which could be somewhat powerful actually, but work), or we
could go a simpler route: consecutive patches with the exact
same description-line (or some other convention?) are shown
as one entry in `darcs changes` et al., marked somehow to
show that it's not actually a single patch. (changes
--xml-output would not be affected, as it's the
machine-readable version :-)). Yes, "consecutive" is a bit
ad-hoc in darcs, but I'd guess it'd work out pretty well?
-Isaac
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list