On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:43:25PM +0100, Wagner Ferenc wrote: > 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.)
I think darcs does something like this already, at least if you enter in a long comment. I'd call this distinctly better than running the tests before asking about the patch info, since often by the time the tests have completed, I no longer remember what change I was recording. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
