This still looks like issue494 to me, and I am resolving it as such.
I don't understand? Simon's report starts with 'More darcs2 woe',
darcs2 came out in 2008, issue494 claims to have been resolved
by a patch in August 2007. How can a patch from a year ago
solve an issue in a version of darcs that should already include
that patch in the first place?
Btw, it would be useful if 'resolved' messages would offer some
brief explanation of what went wrong, how it was fixed, and
which darcs version is going to have the fix, as opposed to
'we happen to have a patch that fixes something that looks
somewhat related to this'.
Also, David wasn't convinced that that patch was totally correct:
$ darcs changes -s -p 'optimize --reorder' | less
Wed Aug 8 01:52:51 GMT Daylight Time 2007 David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fix bug that revealed itself in optimize --reorder on unstable repo.
I'm sure this fix doesn't make things worse, but am not convinced that it
is a totally correct fix. "Sifting for pending" is a subtle business,
and in many ways this patch just works around this complexity. On the other
hand, I can't see another way to deal with this. :(
M ./src/Darcs/Patch.lhs +2
M ./src/Darcs/Patch/Commute.lhs -2 +16
M ./src/Darcs/Repository/DarcsRepo.lhs -8 +10
Frustratingly, the patch message also doesn't say what went
wrong and what was fixed.
Claus
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
