On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 22:33:04 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > Should amend-record be the same as unrecord/record (of the same changes)?
I'm not sure how significant a difference is, but from a UI standpoint one current feature of amend-record is that it offers us changes from the patch we're amending. (which is not to say that we should necessarily keep things that way) > To fix this, I think we would need to make amend-record more aware of > file contents, perhaps by making the code path very similar to what > unrecord/record would do, or perhaps a bit more subtly by augmenting the > existing coalescing code. > This question also has implications for the hunk editing feature that Rob > Hoelz has been working on for a while, which I've also been looking at a > bit recently, so I'm mostly in favour of having a better coalesce > operation, if feasible. Perhaps another reason for the fancy coalescing is that it would be a more straightforward/natural fit into the user interface we currently offer. I guess that an approach which shares more with unrecord/record would do something like (i) coalesce the old simple way (ii) unrecord and (iii) record. Or am I completely off here? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
