Ganesh Sittampalam writes: > The basic behaviour will be somewhat similar, modulo the fact that we're > working with trees rather than patches, and you ought to be able to use it > for all the things you would use git rebase for. The main difference would > be that there are preferred alternatives in darcs for many of those > things, at least in the cases where they work out well. So to some extent > this may "just" be a matter of documentation.
Yeah, it's those quote marks I'm worried about. SMO, uh, D, is it? :-) > > Mercurial calls its rebase extension "transplant"; bzr's is "rewrite" > > (but it provides a command named "rebase", IIRC). Another possibility > > for the darcs command would be "reorder", I think (what does "base" > > mean in Darcs, anyway?) > > In essence the "base" of a patch would be its dependencies. I was afraid you'd say that. I find that hard to think about,and I like thinking about these things .... > I think "reorder" doesn't really describe what the command will do and > would lead to confusion with reordering patches by commutation. I did > originally intend to call it "transplant" but then switch to rebase for > consistency with git. OK. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
