Hello, On Friday 13 March 2009 10:27, Eric Kow wrote: > > Eric Kow <[email protected]> added the comment: > > Just adding my approval to Thorkil's reply (I'm no patch theory expert either, > but two voices should help, right?). > > The key is that darcs does not allow to generate a file removal patch unless the > file is already empty. > > So the trick in darcs is to have patch definitions that lend themselves to this > property of being easily invertible. In the case of file removal, we do it by > only allowing empty files to be removed. > > ---------- > status: wont-fix -> resolved
Now, I don't really care, but it seems useful to be consistent about the status usage. I also considered changing to resolved, but my thinking was that, since the issue is really pointing at a potential problem in the manual, changing the status to resolved would seem to imply that we had actually changed the manual accordingly, somehow. So I chose wont-fix, to indicate that no changes had been carried out as a result of this report. In the GHC bugtracker, there is a status "invalid" for this sort of thing, I agree that with the current description of wont-fix, the ends don't really meet. So, additional thoughts on this would be most appreciated. > title: The knowledge of the patch may have to include knowledge of its context or it will fail to have an inverse -> do we need patch contexts to get inverses? no > > __________________________________ > Darcs bug tracker <[email protected]> > <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1304> > __________________________________ > Thanks and best regards Thorkil _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
