[darcs-users] darcs patch: Accept issue1325: hunk patches interfere with pending ...

Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva marcot at holoscopio.com
Wed Oct 14 14:29:03 UTC 2009


Em Sáb, 2009-10-10 às 15:02 -0700, Eric Kow escreveu:
> Some not so nice whatsnew output:
>   adddir ./b
>   move ./file ./b/file
>   hunk ./b/file 1
>   -file
>   rmfile ./b/file
>   rmdir ./b
> When really we would want to just see
>   hunk ./file 1
>   -file
>   rmfile ./file
> Note that this works fine without the hunk patch isn't there.  I guess the
> problem is that the hunk patch does not commute past the rmfile patch.
> I'm not 100% sure we should be treating this as a bug (or just something
> that's unfortunate about the way Darcs works).  In any case, I guess it's
> not particularly urgent.  Anybody have ideas on what's the right way to
> think about this problem?

>From my point of view the changes between records should be minimized.
If the user want to store some history information, is should record it.
If it has undone some change before recording, that change should not be
shown in the patch.

Why is there the need to do

  hunk ./file 1


  rmfile ./file


Couldn't rmfile store in itself the content of the removed file?  I
think this would solve this problem.

Please reply to me, since I'm not on the list.



More information about the darcs-users mailing list