[darcs-users] [issue1588] option for darcs pull to just get non-conflicting patches

Eric Kow kowey at darcs.net
Sun Sep 6 19:39:39 UTC 2009

On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 20:24:47 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
>> Well matchers already deal with dependencies (or rather darcs operations
>> that deal with matchers).
> OK, I wasn't sure about that, thanks.

I'm not sure where the smarts are: I guess they're not in the matchers
themselves because darcs changes (for example) doesn't care about
dependencies.  Perhaps it's the first-middle-last cleverness in
SelectChanges that does it.

When you say darcs changes --match 'author foo', you just want all the
patches by foo; but if you say darcs pull --match then you want also the
things that patches by foo depend on.

Random chattiness:

- this leads to a bug where darcs changes --context --match gives a
  totally bogus context file (which is why I think I agree with
  issue1258 which wants a darcs show context command separate from

- the fact that pull pays attention to dependencies while vital for
  correctness confuses some people (I asked for 'author foo', why
  are you giving me author bar?).  People can pass --no-deps to
  force no on such patches.  Darcs could do with a UI improvement
  telling people that Darcs is offering you a patch because of
  dependencies (see issue1048)

> Agreed, we should definitely enable the conflicted matcher at all times  
> once it exists, but I also think that what it matches in a given repo  
> shouldn't change depending on what command is run, which pushes us into  
> the implementation for pull being "property of the candidate patch wrt 
> the remote repository".

Would it really change what it matches on?  Doesn't "this patch would
match conflicted if we pulled it" give the same result as it would if we
had pulled it and then darcs changes? 

> So overall I think the conflicted matcher would be independent of the  
> option to darcs pull that does know about conflicts that *would* happen  
> rather than those that have already happened, and these bugs should stay  
> split.

I still think these are the same, but I might be missing something, so
if they are not the same, then I guess --skip-conflicts might be a
name we could use for it.

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: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090906/349ec6e8/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list