> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:58:49 +0100, Tommy Pettersson wrote:
>> Sun Oct 5 01:57:19 CEST 2008 Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> * resolve issue864: check non-force replace against pending
>> The replace was checked against pure pristine, so the answer to if it
>> could be applied to pending without force was sometimes wrong.
>
What replace did was getting the recorded state and the unrecorded state,
then it checked that the replace was possible in the unrecorded state and
that it didn't conflict with recorded state. Now we check against pending
instead of recorded, which fixes issue864.
I'm worried about (existing) line 153-155:
else if ForceReplace `elem` opts ||
isJust (apply_to_slurpy (tokreplace f_fp toks old new)
work) ||
isJust (apply_to_slurpy (tokreplace f_fp toks old new)
cur)
then return (get_force_replace f toks work)
I don't understand why we are happy if we can apply to *either* working or
pending. Tommy, can you comment?
Thanks
Florent
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
