Hello Guilllaume, On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Kow <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe here we've got a confrontation between two principles: > > - the less invasive a change the better > - the more uniform/coherent/consistent the code the better > > Looking through the code, it seems that right now, all the commands > check their prereqs with the commandPrereq function (and this includes > things such as the context file existing). There are some lightweight > prereqs for darcs get that don't seem to get checked (for example, that > if you say darcs get foo bar), but it seems like that could easily > change. > > So what should we do here? Maybe it would be good if you and Guillaume > could work together to figure out why your (Rado)'s draft fails the test > currently. Also one thing to think about: how are prereqs currently > handled and should it be improved?
only quick cross-check of my understanding of your patch: - the Init.hs has been changed since it contains implementation of the "darcs init" command - commanding related code has been changed due new parameter in prereq [String] - the amNotInRepository uses additional argument for setting working repo - the amInRepository and all other change funnctions (e.g. findRepo) doesn't use additional parameter ([String]) Am I right ? It looks like that my patch (less invasive, but not very nice) somehow causes "ignoring" --darcs-2 parameter for "darcs init" command in the tests. It is necessary discover which code is resposible to take into account this --darcs-2 flag and what does it mean (since it looks to be default). Thanks, Rado _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
