Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. > Thanks for the pointer, in goes the patch, i'd say
Florent. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
