On 02/05/2011 07:51, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Ganesh Sittampalam writes: > > > The main issue here, which is of getting the "right" hunks to be > > recorded, is really orthogonal to separating changes. > > I disagree. Indeed there are aspects of correctly specifying hunks > that will be independent of change separation (as in the example of > adding a whole function that you give), but the issue of whether > abutting blocks of changes should be recorded as one hunk or multiple > hunks clearly depends on the intent of the author, ie, change > separation.
Looking at the original poster's example again, I think because it was adding a argument to foo, the changes do turn out to be abutting. If that hadn't been the case, I think darcs might well still have picked the "wrong" set of hunks because of the closing bracket confusion. Picking the right hunks is as interesting problem that goes right to the heart of the tree-based vs patch-based design choice; in each case a heuristic is applied to decide what the changes "really" were, but in a tree-based system it happens when merging whereas in a patch-based system it happens at record time. Doing it early means that it's more likely that you'll capture the real intent of the user, *if* you make it easy for them to communicate that intent. If you the wrong thing is recorded initially, then you're forever screwed. As we develop more sophisticated kinds of patch, we'll need to get the UI right for that. Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
