[darcs-users] [issue525] amend-record => darcs patches show duplicate additions [status=resolved]

[Thorkil Naur]

Setting as resolved based on the following.

Best regards
Thorkil
On Sunday 16 November 2008 21:42, David Roundy wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:17:52PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> > Hi David,
> > 
> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 16:25:41 -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> > > Here's a fix for issue525, which turned out to be trivial.
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!  But I confess that I don't fully understand this.
> > 
> > resolve issue525: canonize output of sort_coalesceFL in AmendRecord.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > David Roundy <droundy at darcs.net>**20081115211925
> > >  Ignore-this: cb7485c971d7d8d6f7ffce9f9ec40e98
> > > ] hunk ./src/Darcs/Commands/AmendRecord.lhs 193
> > > -    in n2pia $ infodepspatch new_pinf pdeps $ fromPrims $ 
sort_coalesceFL $
> > > -       concatFL $
> > > -       mapFL_FL canonize $ oldchs +>+ chs
> > > +    in n2pia $ infodepspatch new_pinf pdeps $ fromPrims $ concatFL $ 
mapFL_FL canonize
> > > +           $ sort_coalesceFL $ concatFL $ mapFL_FL canonize $ oldchs 
+>+ chs
> > 
> > Do you think you could provide some examples of what a realistic
> > non-canonical representation of a patch would be (compared to the
> > canonical one) and also an explanation of why running sort_coalesceFL
> > on them can result in their decanonicalisation?
> 
> canonize is a very poor name for this function, which really just
> simplifies the patches.
> 
> > Also, is there any reason to still canonize the patches before we
> > sort_coalesce them?
> 
> I'm not sure, but I don't think it'll hurt.
> 
> > Is this snippet from issue525 an example of a non-canonical patch?
> > 
> > hunk ./ChangeLog 1
> > -2007-08-29  Alexey Shchepin  <alexey at process-one.net>
> > +2007-08-29  Mickael Remond  <mremond at process-one.net>
> > +
> > +       * doc/guide.tex: Documentation for XML based optimisation build
> > +       time option (EJAB-298)
> > hunk ./ChangeLog 6
> > +2007-08-29  Alexey Shchepin  <alexey at process-one.net>
> > +       
> 
> No, canonize only operates on single primitive patches, and neither of
> these two primitive patches can be simplified.  This pair of patches can't
> be simplified into the below unless you add some additional information
> about the initial line 2.
> 
> > With its canonical representation being something like the below?
> > 
> > hunk ./ChangeLog 1
> > +2007-08-29  Mickael Remond  <mremond at process-one.net>
> > +
> > +       * doc/guide.tex: Documentation for XML based optimisation build
> > +       time option (EJAB-298)
> > +       
> >
> > If so, that makes me a bit confused about the relationship between
> > coalescing and canonizing...
> _______________________________________________
> darcs-users mailing list
> darcs-users at darcs.net
> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
>