in case I'm not the only one to fall into this trap:-)
it is not a good idea to pull changes to darcs-all while darcs-all
is doing the pulling.
I just got an anonymous failure during renaming (it has long scrolled
out of view, but shouldn't there be a file name in that error message?).
The message warned of possible inconsistencies and suggested
"darcs revert" - since nothing seemed to have happened before
the error, I just continued by trying again, which seemed to work,
but "darcs diff" showed up differences afterwards.
after "darcs revert" (note: not "darcs-all revert"), things look okay
again, but I found this slightly confusing.. should "darcs-all pull -a"
perhaps look for changes to darcs-all itself, and refuse to run beyond
the self-patches if such are present (suggesting to continue with
"darcs pull -a; darcs-all pull -a" to complete the update)?
cheers,
claus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Marlow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: patch applied (ghc): Figure out where the rest of the repositoriesare,
based on defaultrepo
Fri Oct 6 03:00:49 PDT 2006 Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Figure out where the rest of the repositories are, based on defaultrepo
This is a slight improvement over the patch sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED],
we now do it properly if the source repo was a GHC tree on the local
filesystem too.
Merge post 6.6.
M ./darcs-all -2 +9
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
