[darcs-users] more hunk editing feedback (was: Re: darcs 2.4 beta 3release)
kowey at darcs.net
Thu Jan 28 15:49:13 UTC 2010
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:07:21 -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > 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".
Perhaps you want revert-upon-record.
Sigh :-) Darcs really trains us to demand better.
Well, here's a ticket opened for reverting upon record (split off
from issue107) <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1734>
I can recognise that my uber-interactive UI may be a silly idea,
but I'm still not particularly happy about the encroachment of new
features in the interactive UI (especially since here the temptation is
to say "eh, what does a new keypress in the interactive interface
Of course, I could very well be mistaken. It's possible that adding
just one more keypress really is harmless, or that reverting upon record
really is *so* useful that it's worth they extra ability; or that this
has such natural conceptual integrity anyway that's really free.
Or maybe <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1713> is a way out. It asks
for the interactive UI to distinguish between basic keypresses and
advanced ones, is a good enough idea that having such a feature won't be
Shall I record this change? (1/1) [ynWesfvplxdaqjk], or ? for help
Shall I record this change? (1/1) [yndq], or ? for more options
[The cost of the above is that we hide functionality, so users may not
even be aware they can, for example skip or select-all to entire files]
Argh, need more wisdom! I don't know! Somebody code something!
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
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the darcs-users