[darcs-users] Should the hunk editor edit files, or in-memory patches? (was: Re: [patch123] Name the separators in the hunk split...)

Stephen J. Turnbull stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Jan 21 07:22:11 UTC 2010

Mark Stosberg writes:
 > It was said that a goal with the current implementation was to be
 > consist with the fact that "record" never modifies the working
 > copy.

 > So I ask the rest of the user list, would you expect that "edit" during
 > darcs record would trigger editting a piece of a file, or would you
 > expect it to edit one more patches in memory?

I would expect an edit operation to allow me to commute primitive
patches, perhaps defined somewhat differently than current Darcs
(since hunk splitting actually changes a patch that is currently
termed "primitive" IIRC).

More information about the darcs-users mailing list