On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:46:10PM +0100, Tommy Pettersson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:03:56AM +0100, Andrei A. Voropaev wrote: > > Was the > > "untag" command ever considered? > > Propagated unpulls has been debated vividly long ago. There is > a problem with propagating patch/tag removals. If I have > applied your tag and made changes and tagged again, I have > patches/tags that depends on that tag. If you send me an > "untag" I can't apply it (without removing all my depending > tags/patches), and I also can't apply any of your future > patches that depends on the "untag".
Well. This is true if tagging is considered a "patch". Does it really has to be so? For myself, I always viewed tagging as a way to mark state. In this sense it can not be a patch. It's an administration. And changes should not depend on administrative acts. I guess currently darcs handles tagging as just different type of patch, that is why other patches become dependant on this one. Should we then talk about different handling for administrative actions and separating tagging from regular patches? To me it appears perfectly logical from UI perspective. Oh well. I have to admit that the whole idea with building patch dependencies seems strange to me. But the UI that darcs offers and user experience is so far the best compared to all other systems I used. So I really have no desire to fix what "ain't broken" :) -- Minds, like parachutes, function best when open _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
