On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 15:44:47 +0200, Tommy Pettersson wrote: > Issue 864 requests that a behavior from 1.0.9 is restored in > 2.1.0. I believe the behavior in 1.0.9 is wrong, and is a > regression from an earlier version of darcs. > > The behavior has however not been restored in 2.1.0. Instead a > bug has been introduced that makes the decision logic for when > to require the --force flag flawed and unreliable, and the > Issue864 test exposes this bug by showing that the --force flag > is required when doing the replace on a moved file, but not when > the file is not moved.
Interesting work! I really like the red-herring hunt (although I confess I'm not following darcs stuff very thoroughly this weekend) Since this is a long-standing regression, and not a recent one, would you be comfortable with whatever solution we settle on going into the 2009-01 release instead of darcs 2.1.0? I'm trying to freeze 2.1.0, for example, by excluding my recent tidying of the test suite. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
