Sorry, that was a mistake ...
Best regards Thorkil On Thursday 08 January 2009 21:49, Thorkil Naur wrote: > Setting as resolved based on the following. > > Best regards > Thorkil > On Sunday 16 November 2008 21:42, David Roundy wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:17:52PM +0000, Eric Kow wrote: > > > Hi David, > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 16:25:41 -0500, David Roundy wrote: > > > > Here's a fix for issue525, which turned out to be trivial. > > > > > > Applied, thanks! But I confess that I don't fully understand this. > > > > > > resolve issue525: canonize output of sort_coalesceFL in AmendRecord. > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > David Roundy <[email protected]>**20081115211925 > > > > Ignore-this: cb7485c971d7d8d6f7ffce9f9ec40e98 > > > > ] hunk ./src/Darcs/Commands/AmendRecord.lhs 193 > > > > - in n2pia $ infodepspatch new_pinf pdeps $ fromPrims $ > sort_coalesceFL $ > > > > - concatFL $ > > > > - mapFL_FL canonize $ oldchs +>+ chs > > > > + in n2pia $ infodepspatch new_pinf pdeps $ fromPrims $ concatFL $ > mapFL_FL canonize > > > > + $ sort_coalesceFL $ concatFL $ mapFL_FL canonize $ oldchs > +>+ chs > > > > > > Do you think you could provide some examples of what a realistic > > > non-canonical representation of a patch would be (compared to the > > > canonical one) and also an explanation of why running sort_coalesceFL > > > on them can result in their decanonicalisation? > > > > canonize is a very poor name for this function, which really just > > simplifies the patches. > > > > > Also, is there any reason to still canonize the patches before we > > > sort_coalesce them? > > > > I'm not sure, but I don't think it'll hurt. > > > > > Is this snippet from issue525 an example of a non-canonical patch? > > > > > > hunk ./ChangeLog 1 > > > -2007-08-29 Alexey Shchepin <[email protected]> > > > +2007-08-29 Mickael Remond <[email protected]> > > > + > > > + * doc/guide.tex: Documentation for XML based optimisation build > > > + time option (EJAB-298) > > > hunk ./ChangeLog 6 > > > +2007-08-29 Alexey Shchepin <[email protected]> > > > + > > > > No, canonize only operates on single primitive patches, and neither of > > these two primitive patches can be simplified. This pair of patches can't > > be simplified into the below unless you add some additional information > > about the initial line 2. > > > > > With its canonical representation being something like the below? > > > > > > hunk ./ChangeLog 1 > > > +2007-08-29 Mickael Remond <[email protected]> > > > + > > > + * doc/guide.tex: Documentation for XML based optimisation build > > > + time option (EJAB-298) > > > + > > > > > > If so, that makes me a bit confused about the relationship between > > > coalescing and canonizing... > > _______________________________________________ > > darcs-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users > > > _______________________________________________ > darcs-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users > _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
