On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:13:21 +0100, Ashley Moran wrote: > > am> * B records patch "WIP - UNRECORD" > > am> * C pulls "WIP - UNRECORD" > > am> * C unrecords "WIP - UNRECORD" > > am> * B obliterates "WIP - UNRECORD" > > > > Max has a point there, Ashley. If you're going to work this way > > (obliterating > > patches that others have pulled) why not just record a bunch of "WIP" > > patches > > and when you're ready to save them, do something like
> Sorry for the delay replying. Max is correct, that this can be done > using existing features in Darcs. It's a *lot* easier now all the > repos are on Dropbox - doing this workflow with patchbundle files is > painful. But it's something that come up often enough that I started > to wish that transferring WIP could be done in one move. OK, and just to be precise, you agree that the workflow Max suggested would have been easier than the one you were using were you still in the pre-Dropbox days, right? > It hasn't been an issue lately, as I've only had one concurrent pair > working on the code (me and someone else). It may only be beneficial > to teams that do rapid pair switching, and maybe also only if the team > is (partially) distributed... which I imagine isn't a huge proportion > of darcs users. I'd like to hear more people who would actually use this and who would find the alternative record many 'WIP...' patches and unrecord them in one go workflow too painful in practice. We really have to work hard and be principled at resisting feature creep and shaping our features so they all fit together harmoniously. Hence the interminable discussions! -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, please try +44 (0)1273 64 2905.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
