On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 12:38:33PM -0400, Ralph Dratman wrote: > So, if one does not record a patch, shouldn't one revert it instead?
The master repo of darcs stable has an unrecorded (local) change for its double-act as web page. It has been there for more than a year without being part of the "published" darcs source. It is only noticeable when you view the web page at <http://darcs.net>. But in a working repo you would normally not want to forever and ever keep an unrecorded change, since you'd get tired of answering "No" to it each time you record new changes, and it would litter the output of Whatsnew. There is in fact a wish for a feature that can automatically exclude some local changes, so people _do_ keep unrecorded changes in working repos, and they _do_ get tired of seeing them and answering "No" to them over and over. :-) (Hm, might add a comment that master repo and working repo are terms used to identify the different usages of clones of a repo. It is common to work with darcs in this way: a master repo holds the finished patches and is only ever appended to; a working repo is used to record, unrecord, amend-record and fearlessly go wild in until you have created and tested out some new patches to push to the master repo.) -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
