On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 03:38:14PM +0100, Florent Becker wrote: > > 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 [...] > 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?
:-) I had the exact same worry, and even sent a "fix" for this, but thanks to David's explanation in some other email on this list, which I can't find now, but it ought to have "issue864" in the subject, I now understand the intention. 1) if we can apply cleanly to pending we don't need to insert any artificial changes. 2) if we can apply cleanly to unrecorded the user has already made all required changes (if any) for us (intentionally or unintentionally), so we don't need to insert any artificial changes. Only if none of 1 and 2 is true do we have to insert artificial changes before we can apply the replace, and that's when we require the --force option. Any month now I'll send in a patch that documents this intention in the code. -- Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
