Thanks! This is a bit more bundle than I am able to review at the moment. Can I have a volunteer to look at it? I'll be applying the first patch straight away on the other hand.
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 01:30:33 +0100, Petr Rockai wrote: > Wed Nov 5 23:41:32 CET 2008 Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Change "Repairing patch" to "Replaying patch" as progress report in > replayRepository. > > Thu Nov 6 00:46:38 CET 2008 Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Refactor Repository.Repair.replayRepository to get rid of CanRepair. > > We now instead return the new (repaired) patchset that needs to be written > out > to the caller, and let them handle it. > > Thu Nov 6 01:00:49 CET 2008 Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Avoid exporting cleanupRepositoryReplay. > > We instead let replayRepository take the post-replay action as a parameter > and > clean up automatically when it's done. Looks like a safer API to me. Change "Repairing patch" to "Replaying patch" as progress report in replayRepository. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Petr Rockai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>**20081105224132] hunk > ./src/Darcs/Repository/Repair.hs 63 > - where k = "Repairing patch" -- FIXME > + where k = "Replaying patch" > aaf _ s NilFL = return (NilFL, s) > aaf i s (p:>:ps) = do > (s', mp') <- run_slurpy s $ applyAndTryToFix p This is a clear improvement to me, so I'll apply this. The problem was that darcs check would say "Repairing patch" Now we just go with something neutral that could apply to both. It's a low-cost solution, one that doesn't involve propagating things throughout functions -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
