Hey, Thanks all for your continued feedback! Keep it coming; I may not respond directly to everybody but I very much appreciate the pushback so far.
On 15 Aug 2012, at 09:38, Benjamin Franksen wrote: >> Mmm, sorry. I didn't do a very good job making the context behind this >> change clear. The issue is that as things stand we don't even know if >> things fail. It just silently does the wrong thing > > Well, that's bad for sure, but why not try to improve that? I can't believe > there is no way to find out if sending an email failed. OK, that sounds like a chance to exercise a little creative thinking. I didn't see any solutions (aside from the proposed one), but maybe with a set of fresh eyes we might hit upon something. Do you have any leads? As I currently understand the situation, the default-configed-mailer-I-didn't-even-know-was-there *thinks* it succeeded. So I suppose we need some way of gathering extrinsic evidence that the send worked (and this in the context of trying to send a patch, not go through some kind of darcs configuration process) >> The proposed send reminds you that it didn't actually send the patch and >> tells you how to set darcs up so that it does. The wording needs a bit of >> work though > > Wording changes or no, I would always expect 'darcs send' to really send > something, or at least try. Why not make a new 'darcs create-patch-bundle' > command? I have some thoughts on this, but they are rather lengthy and perhaps not very helpful. Will try to work on them over time. -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com> _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
