[darcs-users] amend-record = unrecord+record?
Eric Kow
kowey at darcs.net
Mon Aug 3 15:48:29 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 22:33:04 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> Should amend-record be the same as unrecord/record (of the same changes)?
I'm not sure how significant a difference is, but from a UI standpoint
one current feature of amend-record is that it offers us changes from
the patch we're amending. (which is not to say that we should
necessarily keep things that way)
> To fix this, I think we would need to make amend-record more aware of
> file contents, perhaps by making the code path very similar to what
> unrecord/record would do, or perhaps a bit more subtly by augmenting the
> existing coalescing code.
> This question also has implications for the hunk editing feature that Rob
> Hoelz has been working on for a while, which I've also been looking at a
> bit recently, so I'm mostly in favour of having a better coalesce
> operation, if feasible.
Perhaps another reason for the fancy coalescing is that it would be a
more straightforward/natural fit into the user interface we currently
offer. I guess that an approach which shares more with unrecord/record
would do something like (i) coalesce the old simple way (ii) unrecord
and (iii) record. Or am I completely off here?
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090803/4320201f/attachment.pgp>
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list