Hi Piyush, On 22/03/2013 10:40, Piyush P Kurur wrote:
> Instead if we were to change the order of (1) and (2), we get a cousin > of amend-record (neither subsumes the other). Call it record-amend for > time being. So the algorithm to record-amend should be > > > (1) Cherry pick the changes to the working copy of the repository. Let > us call this picked patch p. > > (2) Go over the list of patches in the reverse order (i.e. p4 then p3 > then p2) as long as p commutes over them. > > (3) When the user says stop then merge p and the current patch. > > It looks like the record-amend that I said need no change in the patch > data type (or I might be missing something). It seems to be applicable > in use cases like, adding a missing file, or fixing a typo in the > commit message etc where the current amend-record does not work. Does > it make sense to have this variant even in the presence of rebase? Unfortunately it's not generally safe in darcs to edit the dependencies of a patch without changing the identity of the patch itself. This isn't a really fundamental tenet of patch theory, but it is quite important for the current implementation at least. In your example, p3 depends on p2. I assume the dependency is implicit - i.e. some change in p3 does not commute with some change in p2 - rather than being explicitly added with --ask-deps. That means that darcs will assume that any repository that has p3 also has p2. So if you can change p2 -> p2' without changing p3 -> p3', you will really confuse darcs. As David identifies in his follow-up email, this situation isn't really ideal. There's definitely a lot of scope for augmenting or changing darcs to make the workflow better in this kind of scenario. Cheers, Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
