Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > our patch selection mechanism is very fine, but I feel it should give a > 'last exit before hell question' at the end, so that you can review your > patch selection before commiting to whatever action it is you're > doing. Let me explain: suppose you are sending to a repository. You have > three new patches: a b c, with c depending on b. You will have the > following interaction with darcs: > > 'do you want to send a?' -> y > 'do you want to send b?' -> n > 'congratulations, you've sent a alone.' -> wtf?
I don't know if it helps, but essentially that is what I get with "darcs send --edit", which I have enabled in my ~/.darcs/defaults. After asking about patches, darcs starts up $VISUAL on a file that contains the patch descriptions of outgoing patches. > That's why i propose to add a question after the last patch has been > selected, as follows: > > do you want to <verb> these <things>? [ynvpsrm] > > With > y: yes, go on > n: no, cancel > v: view > p: view in a pager > s: write the output of v to a file and quit > r: restart the selection process > m: modify the selection > > m is hard to implement, but as a first approximation, we could just go > back to the last patch question and let the user use j/k. I'd just have "k: back" then, rather than using a different letter. > s would be very powerful coupled with a --read-selection-from-file > flag. You could then save your selection to a file and edit it to > fine-tune it. In particular, in record, this would allow you to split > hunks. I'm confused; are we still talking about "darcs send"? > Commands could add more specialized answers to that question: for > example, send could propose to edit the mail, or cc: someone, and so on. > > Of course the problem is that this would change darcs' interactive ui > and break any scripts that interact with it (in particular our shell > tests). We could also add a --cautious/--reckless flag pair, but i'm not > too keen on adding many flags, especially when --reckless would probably > not be that useful out of existing scripts (you save one 'y', if it > counts for you, you're not using the interactive ui, are you?). What do > you think? Change the ui, add a flag, do nothing, something else? Perhaps what's really desired is a --dry-run switch for all commands, which prints a high-level description of the action that WOULD be taken, but doesn't actually take it. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
