[darcs-users] Git v. Darcs: megapatches and 'darcs shunt'

[Dan Pascu]

On 17 May 2011, at 17:57, Petr Rockai wrote:

> Isaac Dupree <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> writes:
>> Hmm interesting.  If that's the semantics we want it could maybe be called
>> darcs pull --under.  For the reasons I described before though, I'm not sure
>> whether that merging strategy is disciplined enough to produce the results that
>> people will actually want.  (Which maybe is a critique of darcs-pull using it
>> in the normal way too!  But, well... :)
> 
>> From a UI point of view, I might start by thinking about an optimize command.
>> I'm thinking it'd be clearly nice to have even if pull has a similar operation,
>> and once we have it (or see the challenges in doing it), we'll be able to see
>> more clearly whether we also want a pull flag and what it is that we'd want.  I
>> hope there aren't a proliferation of reordering strategies that we end up
>> wanting.
> 
> I would be in favour of a "darcs splay" or "darcs shuffle" (probably
> better) or even "darcs bring(up)"

Why not darcs reorder? (if I understood right, it's about changing the order of some patches)

splay - I have no idea what this stands for. I'm sure many other users will find the term confusing and they will simply not be able to guess its meaning without documentation.

shuffle - sounds like it will randomly shuffle the patches ;)

bring(up) - it's not obvious that it means to bring some patches up in the chain. It can also (and even more so IMO) suggest bringing the repo up to date in relation with a remote repo or simply bringing patches from another repo (like an alias for pull).

> kind of operation, where I could
> interactively (or with matchers) select what I want to bring near the
> top of the stack. It would be useful to both asses dependencies of a
> patch, examine it in the current context (diffs) and to do things like
> trackdown in the vicinity of a given patch, amend it or temporarily
> unpull/unrecord.

--
Dan