[darcs-users] what about removing the unrevert command?
iago.abal at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 22:17:19 UTC 2011
I do not remember any use of unrevert, although it could be explained
because I rarely use revert too... Does anyone use revert frequently? I
mean, I *think* it is actually normal to don't use unrevert very often.
However its existence looks natural for me, I think I agree with Eric in
most he have said in his first response.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Miles Gould <miles at assyrian.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Well, for those purposes I just use branches
$ cd ..
$ darcs get --lazy --to-patch 'Last patch I want to keep' myrepo/
Unapplying X patches
$ cd myrepo_something/
Is stash really needed? Am I loosing something?
> 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
> darcs-users mailing list
> darcs-users at darcs.net
Iago Abal Rivas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the darcs-users