Excerpts from David Roundy's message of Thu Jan 10 19:01:00 +0100 2008: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 06:23:56PM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > Excerpts from David Roundy's message of Thu Jan 10 18:08:59 +0100 2008: > > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:43:40PM +0000, Nicolas Pouillard wrote: > > > > Mon Jan 7 16:02:24 CET 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * test: Exibit a falling test about rollback. > > > > Indeed the only test about rollback was br0ken by a prior test that > > > > creates a > > > > directory and remove read permissions to it. The rollback > > > > test do some > > > > records that silently fail by lack of permissions, finally the > > > > rollback is > > > > cancelled since the named patch doesn't exist. > > > > This shows that rollback need some care. > > > > > > Thanks for the patch! > > > > > > I've actually been debating the idea of removing the rollback command. > > > It's poorly implemented, and has been a source of confusion and problems. > > > What do you think? > > > > The source of problems was about hidden conflicts, right? > > It's no longer a problem in darcs2, right? > > > > It's mainly a common use case when can no longer use amend-record. > > > > I think that's also a great tool to temporarily revert a patch without > > having > > two repositories. > > > > Moreover this kind of operation is waited when one know that patches must > > be > > invertible. > > The problem is that it's a pretty limited and counterintuitive command. > You can't (currently) rollback a patch if there is a patch that depends on > it which has been rolled back already. And it doesn't affect the working > directory, which makes certain things much easier (e.g. no need to deal > with conflicts), but doesn't match what most folks actually want to do. > Also, you can't add a note indicating *why* a patch was rolled back, which > is a pretty big downside. > > Having just chatted on this subject with a friend who walked by my office, > I think what I'll do is implement a modified rollback that will allow you > to undo more than one named patch at a time, and will make those changes in > the working directory as well as recording them, and will allow you to > provide a description of why you're rolling the change back... and will > also (maybe not in the first draft) allow you to roll back just a subset of > the primitive changes in those patches. I think this'll be more useful and > also easier to implement.
This seems a pretty good direction. -- Nicolas Pouillard aka Ertai _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
