> Ah, I misread your example. You're right, that this different from what > I was talking about. On the other hand, this case looks like someone has > just done a manual --force, which is perfectly reasonable. So I'm still in > favor of this code, although your objection now makes more sense.
Yeah, I figured it might be safe from a darcs-internals point of view. I'll push it sometime this week or maybe this weekend. That said, would it work as a solution to just remove the isJust (apply_to_slurpy (tokreplace f toks old new) work) since the pristine cache check is all that we really need? -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgpqb4gnDADZ3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
