Dear Darcs-Developers
'darcs rollback' seems to offer only patches that are not depended upon by
other patches in the same repo. I don't understand the reason for this
limitation. If someone could enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Cheers
Ben
___
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:46:02 +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
'darcs rollback' seems to offer only patches that are not depended upon by
other patches in the same repo. I don't understand the reason for this
limitation. If someone could enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Are you
Looks good, thanks.
Add DARCS_CONNECTION_TIMEOUT info to user manual
+DARCS\_CONNECTION\_TIMEOUT \ref{env:DARCS_CONNECTION_TIMEOUT}\\
+\paragraph{DARCS\_CONNECTION\_TIMEOUT}
+\label{env:DARCS_CONNECTION_TIMEOUT}
+Set the maximum time in
New submission from Eric Kow ko...@darcs.net:
I doubt anybody is going to object to this one, but one thing that gave me
pause was that applying this patch would invalidate all the pre-existing
URLs (in other words, the node2.html etc).
I guess if we really cared about it, I could add a bunch
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 20:00:45 +, Adolfo Builes wrote:
Wed Aug 11 15:02:11 COT 2010 builes.ado...@googlemail.com
* Adding information about cache handling to manual
Yeah, that looks better. I've pushed a patch of my own on top
of this if that's OK; it just tightens up the wording a
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 21:34:28 +, Adolfo Builes wrote:
Tue Aug 10 16:55:22 COT 2010 builes.ado...@googlemail.com
* Correct error code for curl operation timeout
Applied in an earlier run
Wed Aug 11 16:21:21 COT 2010 builes.ado...@googlemail.com
* Add environment variable
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 22:37:36 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
Regarding the ongoing maintenance, I'm quite attracted to the idea
of accepting it for maintenance by the darcs team, but with a
somehow lower status than darcs itself.
+1 on that
Rather than having a single
darcs-contrib
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 23:43:13 +, Petr Ročkai wrote:
I have a vague plan of splitting the path code
from hashed-storage, bundling it with IO functions that take (Path p) = p
type
paths for convenient usage.
Minor admin note (sorry!) Perhaps Ben Moseley (who was at the Utrecht
hacking
Petr Ročkai m...@mornfall.net added the comment:
Reinier, please re-check. It *is* failing for me without the appropriate
Resolve xxx: patch. You need to run it explicitly if it's prefixed with
failing-.
$ cabal test tests/failing-issue1909-unrecord-O-misses-tag.sh
(etc etc)
grep TAG
New submission from Eric Kow ko...@darcs.net:
6 patches for repository http://darcs.net/releases/branch-2.5:
All of these patches go together, I'm afraid. Ganesh, would you be available
to have a look?
This was a surprisingly tricky one (for me) because I had a lot of trouble
anticipating the
Reinier Lamers tux_roc...@reinier.de added the comment:
Petr Ročkai m...@mornfall.net added the comment:
Reinier, please re-check. It *is* failing for me without the appropriate
Resolve xxx: patch. You need to run it explicitly if it's prefixed with
failing-.
$ cabal test
Eric Kow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:46:02 +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
'darcs rollback' seems to offer only patches that are not depended upon
by other patches in the same repo. I don't understand the reason for this
limitation. If someone could enlighten me I'd be grateful.
Are
Ben Franksen wrote:
Eric Kow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:46:02 +0200, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
'darcs rollback' seems to offer only patches that are not depended upon
by other patches in the same repo. I don't understand the reason for
this limitation. If someone could enlighten me I'd
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:12:19PM +0200, Ben Franksen wrote:
No, I was using interactive UI. The patch (call it A) I wanted to rollback
had another patch (call it B) depending on it. B was offered by 'darcs
rollback' and when I said 'n[o]' (because I want to rollback A) then I do
not get
New submission from Jason Dagit a...@oregonstate.edu:
Hello,
Don Stewart pointed out to me today that our hashed-storage constraint is
overly constrained. It's good that we provide a lower bound that takes into
account the necessary bug fixes, but we are not taking into account bug fix
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason Dagit wrote:
Don Stewart pointed out to me today that our hashed-storage constraint is
overly constrained. It's good that we provide a lower bound that takes into
account the necessary bug fixes, but we are not taking into account bug fix
releases of hashed-storage
16 matches
Mail list logo
