[darcs-users] Do you really mean resolved here? (Was: [issue1304] do we need patch contexts to get inverses? no)

Thorkil Naur naur at post11.tele.dk
Fri Mar 13 10:06:29 UTC 2009


Hello,

On Friday 13 March 2009 10:27, Eric Kow wrote:
> 
> Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> added the comment:
> 
> Just adding my approval to Thorkil's reply (I'm no patch theory expert 
either,
> but two voices should help, right?).
> 
> The key is that darcs does not allow to generate a file removal patch unless 
the
> file is already empty.
> 
> So the trick in darcs is to have patch definitions that lend themselves to 
this
> property of being easily invertible.  In the case of file removal, we do it 
by
> only allowing empty files to be removed.
> 
> ----------
> status: wont-fix -> resolved

Now, I don't really care, but it seems useful to be consistent about the 
status usage. I also considered changing to resolved, but my thinking was 
that, since the issue is really pointing at a potential problem in the 
manual, changing the status to resolved would seem to imply that we had 
actually changed the manual accordingly, somehow. So I chose wont-fix, to 
indicate that no changes had been carried out as a result of this report.

In the GHC bugtracker, there is a status "invalid" for this sort of thing, I 
agree that with the current description of wont-fix, the ends don't really 
meet.

So, additional thoughts on this would be most appreciated.

> title: The knowledge of the patch may have to include knowledge of its 
context or it will fail to have an inverse -> do we need patch contexts to 
get inverses? no
> 
> __________________________________
> Darcs bug tracker <bugs at darcs.net>
> <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1304>
> __________________________________
> 

Thanks and best regards
Thorkil


More information about the darcs-users mailing list