Hi Eric, Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > Sun Oct 11 17:07:44 BST 2009 Eric Kow <[email protected]> > * Reduce scope of Darcs.Patch.Choices.pull_first. > Pull_firsts makes use of it and seems to discard some of the intermediary > results. I want to ensure that changing these intermediary results does > not have unintended consequences. this one is clear, if it compiles it works.
> Sun Oct 11 19:09:47 BST 2009 Eric Kow <[email protected]> > * Remove completely superfluous negTag mechanism. > This change is really due to Kamil Dworakowski, who observed that > pull_firsts > returns all the InFirst patches along with the InMiddle patches they depend > on > without any tags. But I have my doubts about this. I mean, although pull_firsts does not care about the tag value in itself, it leaks the tags which are examined in other parts of the code for equality. I'll have to carefully go through all the code dealing with those tags to understand whether this is a good idea at all. I also think that the comment for Tag, although well-intended, is pretty confusing, since it emphasises implementation details instead of the actual important bits. What it's trying to say is that Tag is a patch label that is *unique within a sequence*, and the whole "pointer" stuff is just a handy mechanism to guarantee that uniqueness (also, calling that a "pointer" is rather ... unorthodox). Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
