On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:04:46AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
>
> Perhaps it would also be nice to make with_new_pending perform the
> withSignalsBlocked that is always required, which would simplifiy the
> command code a tad.
As long as you can have one withSignalsBlocked inside another (and I
think you can, but haven't checked) I think that would be good.
> Let me know what you think about this (and this is a patch where it'd be
> nice to get more than just Ian's reviews... too bad Juliusz is away just
> now). I think it's an nice step towards a higher-level
> repository-modifying interface.
Looks good to me; any other opinions before I apply it?
I made a couple of tweaks as below (can't darcs send it without jumping
through some hoops or resending your patch, unfortunately):
[Small tweaks to the with_new_pending patch
Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>**20050727025308]
<
> {
hunk ./DarcsRepo.lhs 179
do let p = sift_for_pending origp
newname = name ++ ".new"
writePatch newname p
- mp <- read_pending newname
cur <- job
hunk ./DarcsRepo.lhs 180
+ mp <- read_pending newname
unless (isNothing mp) $
when (isNothing $ apply_to_slurpy (fromJust mp) cur) $ do
let buggyname = name ++ "_buggy"
hunk ./Unrecord.lhs 169
pris <- identifyPristine
applyPristine pris (invert $ join_patches to_unrecord) `catch` \e ->
fail ("Unable to apply inverse patch!\n" ++ show e)
- sync_repo repository
- putStrLn "Finished unrecording."
+ sync_repo repository
+ putStrLn "Finished unrecording."
get_last_patches :: [DarcsFlag] -> PatchSet -> [(PatchInfo, Maybe Patch)]
get_last_patches opts ps =
}
(hmm, from a human point of view that 179 is potentially confusing, and
the 180 line should probably have been omitted)
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
