-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (cc'ing darcs-users as this is really a darcs issue) (it didn't seem to get through? so I'm trying just sending it to)
Isaac Dupree wrote: > Jason Dagit wrote: >> On 5/22/07, Adam Langley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On 5/22/07, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> nearest needs Num, but the other two shouldn't. >>> That's a great point, I hadn't thought about that. I don't know if >>> people usually send a correction patch, or remake the patch but I've >>> done the former: >> I can't speak for the protocol of this libraries list, but in >> darcs-devel people usually use 'amend-record' when the changes are >> small (like correcting a typo). > > I prefer making another patch and sending the two patches together, as > per the darcs manual > http://www.darcs.net/manual/node7.html#SECTION00791000000000000000 > in case someone else has already applied the first patch, it makes > darcs work better. (the changelog-spamming effect is unfortunate hmm, would it make any sense for an amended patch to list the identities/hashes of the patches that are obsoleted by it, so that this effect isn't such a problem? (Then there would be a functional reason to use amend-record, so I could complain that there doesn't seem to be a way to remove modifications from a patch using amend-record, just to add them) Isaac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGWWAcHgcxvIWYTTURAsKQAJ4+C2dnlHRCMdClZtTkT3q6Oa+OOgCeNOiY LxlTX2YoO+10E8UmRwyeVls= =eQbY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
