[darcs-users] How to develop on a (GHC) branch with darcs

Ganesh Sittampalam ganesh at earth.li
Sun Dec 12 12:55:11 UTC 2010

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Ganesh Sittampalam writes:
> > The basic behaviour will be somewhat similar, modulo the fact that we're
> > working with trees rather than patches, and you ought to be able to use it
> > for all the things you would use git rebase for. The main difference would
> > be that there are preferred alternatives in darcs for many of those
> > things, at least in the cases where they work out well. So to some extent
> > this may "just" be a matter of documentation.
> Yeah, it's those quote marks I'm worried about.  SMO, uh, D, is it? :-)

I think the main point to get across is that patch commutation (i.e. 
normal darcs operations; we don't necessarily need to mention commutation 
at all) is the preferred route, where it works.

> > > Mercurial calls its rebase extension "transplant"; bzr's is "rewrite"
> > > (but it provides a command named "rebase", IIRC).  Another possibility
> > > for the darcs command would be "reorder", I think (what does "base"
> > > mean in Darcs, anyway?)
> >
> > In essence the "base" of a patch would be its dependencies.
> I was afraid you'd say that.  I find that hard to think about,and I
> like thinking about these things ....

Well, I guess an alternative view would be that the "base" is all the 
patches in the context - but then commutation would also be a rebase 
operation so we'd have to find another more specific name for this 


More information about the darcs-users mailing list