David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:12:38PM +0200, Florent Becker wrote: >> Once more, with the attchment >> >> Wed Oct 8 12:05:51 CEST 2008 Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * refactor of SelectChanges >> >> Wed Oct 8 14:22:24 CEST 2008 Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * added a --lazy-deps option >> This option means that you don't get asked about patches which do not match >> a --match, but are depended upon by a patch that does. These patches will >> get >> ilently selected. >> >> >> Wed Oct 8 14:49:56 CEST 2008 Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * basic tests for --lazy-deps > > On the whole it looks fine (not that I've really had time to review it > carefully), but we definitely need a better flag than --lazy-deps. > Maybe --implicit-deps or --dont-prompt-for-dependencies? The latter > is awfully long, but does actually describe what you've implemented.
Is it the opposite of --ask-deps? If so, I suggest --no-ask-deps. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
