On Sun, 12 Dec 2010, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
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? :-)
I think the main point to get across is that patch commutation (i.e.
normal darcs operations; we don't necessarily need to mention commutation
at all) is the preferred route, where it works.
> > 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 ....
Well, I guess an alternative view would be that the "base" is all the
patches in the context - but then commutation would also be a rebase
operation so we'd have to find another more specific name for this
command.
Ganesh
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
