[darcs-users] darcs patch: resolve issue864: check non-force replace against pending (and 2 more)
ptp at lysator.liu.se
Sun Oct 5 15:52:51 UTC 2008
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 02:57:01PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 15:44:47 +0200, Tommy Pettersson wrote:
> > Issue 864 requests that a behavior from 1.0.9 is restored in
> > 2.1.0. I believe the behavior in 1.0.9 is wrong, and is a
> > regression from an earlier version of darcs.
> > The behavior has however not been restored in 2.1.0. Instead a
> > bug has been introduced that makes the decision logic for when
> > to require the --force flag flawed and unreliable, and the
> > Issue864 test exposes this bug by showing that the --force flag
> > is required when doing the replace on a moved file, but not when
> > the file is not moved.
> Interesting work! I really like the red-herring hunt (although I
> confess I'm not following darcs stuff very thoroughly this weekend)
> Since this is a long-standing regression, and not a recent one, would
> you be comfortable with whatever solution we settle on going into the
> 2009-01 release instead of darcs 2.1.0? I'm trying to freeze 2.1.0, for
> example, by excluding my recent tidying of the test suite.
I think that after sorting out this issue it no longer appears
critical. It also seams to require some further discussion on
what would be the best behavior for Replace.
On the other hand I feel quite sure that the issue864 fix patch
alone will have no other effects than to change when Replace
will require --force, and it will very likely restore things to
the liberal but / and consistent way it was in 1.0.9.
So I'd say it's a tough call.
I'll send a help text only patch that changes the warning from
Replace so it hints about the --force option, which could be a
freeze-safer and fast-trackable way to deal with issue864 for
Tommy Pettersson <ptp at lysator.liu.se>
More information about the darcs-users