Wagner Ferenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Wouldn't it be better if the test command were run before record asks > for the patch name and description? That would mean less lost typing > in case of a test failure. I know about --logfile, but that only > helps if one anticipates the test failure.
If that's not viable, my next wish would be stashing away the data on test failure, so that I can use --logfile for the next record. Or something similar, which deletes the file if the record was successful. (Please don't get me wrong: I'm willing to implement something like this, but prefer to do some research first.) -- Thanks, Feri. _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
