Eric Kow wrote:
But that's not particularly surprising if we're working on the principle
that the hunk editor does not change the working directory. In effect
you've edited the patch into oblivion, so Darcs does not propose
anything; but it does propose the "anti-patch" afterwards which brings
back the hunk. This is effectively a no-op.
I realise this can be a surprising principle given the interface,
It is very surprising given the current interface. Every other change
turns one patch into two patches, but this edit turns one patch into
just one patch. For the sake of discoverability, it might be better to
actually add a no-op patch before the unchanged patch, for the user to
say yes or no to. (maybe??) Or alternatively, for Darcs to output a
slightly snarky message, "You don't want to amend this patch at all?
Well that's fine with me!"*, and then ask [ynWs...] about the patch again.
*er, a better parallel to "Ok, if you don't want to record anything,
that's fine!" would be "Ok, if you don't want to amend this patch,
that's fine!". Although I'm not sure if parallel with that is what we
should be going for!
-Isaac
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
