[darcs-users] Do you really mean resolved here? (Was: [issue1304] do we need patch contexts to get inverses? no)
naur at post11.tele.dk
Fri Mar 13 10:06:29 UTC 2009
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
> but two voices should help, right?).
> The key is that darcs does not allow to generate a file removal patch unless
> file is already empty.
> So the trick in darcs is to have patch definitions that lend themselves to
> property of being easily invertible. In the case of file removal, we do it
> 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
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>
Thanks and best regards
More information about the darcs-users