Ketil Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, I am not. I am talking about adding a more granular method for > determining patches.
Silly me. Quite possibly you wouldn't have to do anything special with the patch format at all, if darcs struggles to commute one patch past another, it could simply convert both into word-based patches (after all, it can reconstruct the before and after state, right?), and try again. Or am I labelled totally insane at this point? :-) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
