[darcs-users] more hunk editing feedback (was: Re: darcs 2.4 beta 3release)

Mark Stosberg mark at summersault.com
Thu Jan 28 15:07:21 UTC 2010

> There's nothing like a good minimal test case. :-)
>  [I assume it's the last darcs record where we hit 'e', right?]


> But that's not particularly surprising if we're working on the principle
> that the hunk editor does not change the working directory.  In effect
> you've edited the patch into oblivion, so Darcs does not propose
> anything; but it does propose the "anti-patch" afterwards which brings
> back the hunk.  This is effectively a no-op.

Ok, I can see how that's technically consistent then, but it's just not
what I expected.

My common use-case for this is that I have code I want to record, and
debugging I want to remove. The current implementation is still useful
for this, because it would allow me to split a case where the debugging
touched the code.

If I can do that, I suppose I can just do a "revert -a" when I'm done to
eliminate the debugging code that remains.

> Also, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't you have just said 'n'
> in the traditional interface for this case?  

Right, and then later a "revert". I was hoping to get two steps down to
one. Instead of record+revert, I could just do a "record".

It will still be an improvement over the the worst case:

 # oops! manually delete debugging to split a hunk
 record again
 revert the rest

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100128/63377863/attachment.pgp>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list