[darcs-users] darcs patch: Remove duplicated documentation. (and 4 more)

Eric Kow kowey at darcs.net
Fri Oct 2 10:28:34 UTC 2009

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 15:51:15 +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > I think this with a little rewriting, this could actually be made
> > useful.  As long as darcs replace is around we should make sure it is
> > well understood and clearly non-magical (note that this is orthogonal
> > to whether you like darcs replace or not: such clarity could lead users
> > to make the informed choice that they do *not* want to use darcs
> > replace)

> OK; given my bias, someone else should do this bit of documentation :-)

Hah! I guess that excludes me too.

> > I think it's important for users to know that when they use darcs
> > replace, the darcs replace operation will get bubbled up to the front
> > of whatever named patch they are constructing.  I didn't know that,
> > for example :-)
> I don't remember that being part of the text that delete-unhelpful
> wanted to remove.  Are you requesting new documentation?  File a
> wishlist ticket ;-)

Nope.  Here it is

| -\begin{verbatim}
| -$ [manually edit foo.c replacing newtoken with aaack]
| -$ darcs replace oldtoken newtoken ./foo.c
| -\end{verbatim}
| -will fail because ``newtoken'' still exists in the recorded version of
| -\verb!foo.c!.  The reason for the difference is that when recording, a
| -``replace'' patch always is recorded \emph{before} any manual changes,
| -which is usually what you want, since often you will introduce new
| -occurrences of the ``newtoken'' in your manual changes. 

Darcs diff
> >> -Note that the command is split into space-separated words and the first one is
> >> -\verb!exec!ed with the rest as arguments---it is not a shell command.  Also
> >> -the substitution of the \verb!%! escapes is only done on complete words.
> >> -See \ref{resolution} for how you might work around this fact, for example,
> >> -with Emacs' Ediff package.
> >
> > COMMENT: Also, I think this info may be useful..  For example, would
> > 'foo bar' confuse --diff-opts?  We seem to say that it would.
> See issue1579.  I guess I assumed my workaround there was sufficient.

Interestingly there's two issues here: one that --diff-opts does *no* splitting
issue1579, and then the one which I was asking about, whether --diff does too
much splitting (so to speak).  I guess for the latter if you're using a diff
command with spaces in it, you deserve what you get.

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/20091002/034a5b32/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list