Gwern Branwen wrote: > There's no winning, is there. :( One big patch doesn't commute, and a > lot of little patches pollutes the history, and mixing it into other > changes is unclear.
"pollutes the history" is an excuse that bothers me. Why? Because the only effect is on user-interface things that we could easily change, such as `darcs changes`. Maybe when you make a patch bundle there should be some way to specify that all the patches do the same thing and should normally be shown as just one entry in the history. Either we'd need to have an explicit way to mark that "same thing" concept (which could be somewhat powerful actually, but work), or we could go a simpler route: consecutive patches with the exact same description-line (or some other convention?) are shown as one entry in `darcs changes` et al., marked somehow to show that it's not actually a single patch. (changes --xml-output would not be affected, as it's the machine-readable version :-)). Yes, "consecutive" is a bit ad-hoc in darcs, but I'd guess it'd work out pretty well? -Isaac _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
