On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 09:01:33PM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > > 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?
Right, that would give the behavior you've described, but I prefer our current behavior, which I think is rather more intuitive. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
