Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > On 29/06/2013 15:31, Ben Franksen wrote: >> I have two questions / requests regarding the new rebase command. I am >> refering to the version from the current screened repo. >> >> (1) It seems the rebase command is missing a way for the user to view the >> suspended patches. Is this something that is in the works? Or did I just >> miss it somehow? > > That's in the works, hopefully I'll get it submitted soon. It'll > probably be called 'darcs rebase changes'.
Cool, I was hoping to hear that. >> (2) The rebase command does not allow me to 'force-commute' two patches. I >> thought that the idea of rebase was to allow that. I dimly remember that in >> an earlier version 'darcs rebase unsuspend' allowed me to select a suspended >> patch without also selecting the (suspended) patches it depends upon. This >> is currently not possible. (I may well remember this wrongly, in which case >> you can regard this a feature request.) > > I'd like to support this, and I think I tried once but the code ended up > a mess so I wanted to rethink. In the meantime you can workaround as > follows: > > - Suppose you want to force commute A and B (i.e. B depends on A) > - clone your repository, and in the clone, suspend A and B, then rebase > obliterate A, and unsuspend B and deal with the conflicts > - in the original repository, obliterate B and suspend A, then pull in > the fixed up B, and unsuspend A and deal with the conflicts Ah, thanks a lot! I had not thought of using rebase obliterate. >> The reason I want to do that is that I want to pull a fix from development >> branch to stable branch, but the fix (accidentally) depends on some complex >> development change I made. Of course I expect to get conflicts when I >> finally unsuspend the "complex change" /after/ the "fix" and I am ready to >> resolve them manually. I would even expect having to do some conflict >> resolution when unsuspending just the fix. > > Yeah, this definitely makes sense, just needs some work to support > nicely. In an ideal world, I think you'd also only have to deal with the > conflicts once: whatever you do to resolve B should also imply how to > resolve A. That'll be a step further though :-) It would be extremely cool to only have to resolve the conflicts once. If you can manage to implement this, you'd have a happy regular user in me ;-) Cheers & Thanks for the quick reply. -- Ben Franksen () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachm€nts _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
