-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Isaac Dupree wrote: > 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
Well, I wonder. Suppose I had done the patches as a 'darcs replace' (is removing trailing whitespace doable that way?). Then each patch would appear as basically 2 lines in darcs changes - the summary and the useless replace depiction. Would that still count as polluting the history? - -- gwern -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEAREKAAYFAklRgBAACgkQvpDo5Pfl1oITKACgldJyU1unv0vqALcPwoNfA67d dhoAn228ReVbO3W8vVh4Avi4fqK8Fe2l =faBI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
