[darcs-users] [patch261] resolve issue1848: Patch.Choices.makeEverythingSooner ...

Florent Becker florent.becker at ens-lyon.org
Thu Jun 3 20:41:52 UTC 2010

> oh but not losing this distinction could make a nice UI improvement! I
> think if you are using matchers and interactive selection, it would be
> nice to see if the patch you are looking at was selected by a matcher or
> is there because of a dependency. It would be perfect if you could ask
> darcs which really-interesting patch caused it to be included, but
> that's probably not very straightforward, implementation-wise. But even
> marking "slightly interesting" patches as such could reduce confusion in
> a few situations. What do you think?
It's not a bad idea, but it's a non trivial amount of work to implement,
since you'd have to change the content of PatchChoices to reflect the
dependencies. I'm also not sure how to present the information simply to
the user (eg. do we include transitive dependencies?). In general, I
find using --dont-prompt-for-deps and/or --reverse liberally allows some
nice cherry picking. So i'm ok on the principle, but it's not a
priority. On the other hand, if someone wants to get familiar with the
SelectChanges code, it would be a good entry point.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list