Hi, Ian Lynagh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > So my conclusion is that we must either have this counter-intuitive > behaviour, or we must name primitive patches. I wouldn't go as far as giving human names to primitive patches, since if I understand correctly, that pretty much defeats the idea of allowing dupes to coexist. Maybe a notice on unpull saying "Warning: Using B to satisfy C's dependency on A" would help the intuition? Although I don't think that we have enough information to actually know what to print. We possibly could warn whenever one of the possibly-satisfying patches is removed (so we would also get a warning if B is unpulled in this case). I think with the symmetry, it should be doable (it's the asymmetry that's not recorded anywhere, me thinks?). Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
