[darcs-users] what about removing the unrevert command?

Miles Gould miles at assyrian.org.uk
Mon Apr 4 13:17:18 UTC 2011

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:38:05PM +0200, Guillaume Hoffmann wrote:
> So one question for you git users:  How is the darcs revert / pull /
> unrevert workflow better than just pulling and resolving conflicts in
> the working copy?

That's not really what I use git-stash for. Generally, I use git-stash
for one of two reasons:

1) This approach doesn't look like it's going to work out, and I want to
try something else, but I don't want to throw it away quite yet.
2) I need to drop whatever I'm working on NOW NOW NOW and fix a critical
bug in something else.

If I'm just doing the normal hack/commit/pull cycle, I'll normally wait
until I get to a natural stopping point (and hence a natural committing
point) before pulling.

> (As a reminder, darcs enables people to pull with
> dirty working copy, while git does not.)

This isn't strictly true. Git will allow you to pull (or more precisely,
merge: in git, pull = fetch + merge) provided that none of the dirty
files in your working copy are touched by the patches you've fetched.


Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
  -- Noam Chomsky

More information about the darcs-users mailing list