> For instance, unpull and obliterate could be separated so that unpull > requires the user to specify a repository "from which" the patch is > unpulled. darcs unpull would then refuse to unpull the patch if the > patch did not exist in that repository. The repository would > naturally > default to the same repository as with darcs pull, darcs push etc. > This > way, it would be impossible to unpull the last copy of a patch, > because > to unpull it, there must always be a repository where it still exists.
+1 But by the way, I still believe that "unpull" is a confusing name that should be deprecated. If you create a patch and push it and then "unpull" it what happens? Well, what happens is fine, except that the user is confused and doesn't understand why you can unpull something that you didn't pull. This isn't just my own personal intuition -- it is something that I have personally witnessed more than once. (It also matches my own personal intuition.) > Another measure, not much more complicated, would be a feature to > track > whether a patch has been distributed. Every repository could simply > have a list of not-yet-distributed patches and protect against > unrecording or amending patches that have been distributed. +1 Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list darcs-devel@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
