Alex Lance writes: > If the unpull command is to continue its life in darcs then yes that > behaviour of making it safe, so that you don't accidentally "unpull" i.e. > delete, your single copy of a local patch, appears to be desirable > functionality.
No, this is *undesirable* functionality. The point of obliterate is indeed to delete your single copy of a local patch (for unlikely but possible example, under a court order) without otherwise harming your repository. More likely, people just like to live dangerously, and they mostly use it in a fairly safe fashion as a generalized amend-record. If you want to "undo" but keep the record of a patch, `darcs rollback' will do the trick, albeit at the cost of including the rollback patch in history. > - would allow you to nuke the text "(UNSAFE!)" from the documentation :) But then somebody will request the addition of a true (ie, unsafe) obliterate command. Anyway, it is, after all, somewhat safer than "rm _darcs/patches/...". > I think someone mentioned stash and unstash... As I understand your intent, these are functionally equivalent to multiple heads in a git or Mercurial repository, but would proliferate heads in a combinatoric fashion (ie, if you stash 1 patch, you have two "heads" mainline and with1, if you stash 2 patches, you have *four* "heads", mainline, with1, with2, withBoth). Not a good UI. What might be more desirable would be an implicit stash/unstash functionality with a "named subset" facility as the UI (aka multiple branches in a single repo). However, that goes against the traditional Darcs mindset of branch == repo. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
