Mark Stosberg wrote:
The one modification I would suggest to the workflow is that the
resulting change should immediately modify my file in the working
directory, and then the record would proceed as normal. This eliminates
the remaining confusing presence of a "filler patch".
The patches displayed to me after the edit would just be the diffs that
are physically in my file, as normal.
not in my workflow! Usually I want the changes that aren't included in
this record-session to be recorded in a later named-patch, rather than
deleted. (Although the latter would be convenient in the case of typos,
if darcs could read my mind... and if it could coordinate
editing-the-file with vim [my editor], which seems a bit unlikely)
(I haven't gotten around to trying eric's revised version -- i've
wondered whether I would be sad, after editing the lines in the buffer
that it tells me to edit, to not be able to visually refer to the final
state a.k.a. what is in the physical file)
-Isaac
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
