Hi, Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, my position on this is probably on the patches welcome side. > It would be good if the person writing such a patch could work out > a sensible plan for (a) interacting with the local email pref and > (b) working with older versions of darcs I would probably prefer the email pref to be left alone, myself. Maybe better documentation is in place, but. The idea of the email pref is that it is *not* part of the *downstream* branch. What you do is
darcs send http://example.com/repo and then darcs fetches http://example.com/repo/_darcs/prefs/email to see where to send patches. With the proposed solution, you completely lose that ability, since now the mail address is recorded in your local repository. And this is how it should be: you should be able to send patches to different "upstream" branches from your single downstream branch, and different upstream branches of the same project should be able to have different emails, eg. [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], without people manually excluding the relevant "email" patches all the time from propagating. This would also screw up tags and so on and so forth in such a scenario. Just please don't. Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
