On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:04 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The other is "replace very instace of identifier `foo` with identifier`bar`".
That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser .
Alternately, that itself could be embedded in the comment for patches
sourced from darcs. Of course, that means patches from others are less
commutable than from other darcs users, but that's the price you'd pay
for relying on the user to explicitly note a token rename.
 An example: http://minnie.tuhs.org/Programs/Ctcompare/index.html
As for "darcs mv", that can be derived from the before/after pictures of
> And darcs is specifically intended to support additional kinds of patches.
Anything missing out of what I listed above? (darcs has adddir and
addfile, IIRC, but those are trivially discovered via inspection of the
trees as well, I think.)
> Anyway, the point is that, in the darcs world, it is NOT possible to
> reconstruct a patch from the before and after trees.
Not yet, and maybe not ever, but I think we can certainly get closer to
discovering what the coder was thinking during a changeset.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html