Isaac Dupree <[email protected]> writes: > Hmm interesting. If that's the semantics we want it could maybe be called > darcs pull --under. For the reasons I described before though, I'm not sure > whether that merging strategy is disciplined enough to produce the results > that > people will actually want. (Which maybe is a critique of darcs-pull using it > in the normal way too! But, well... :)
> From a UI point of view, I might start by thinking about an optimize command. > I'm thinking it'd be clearly nice to have even if pull has a similar > operation, > and once we have it (or see the challenges in doing it), we'll be able to see > more clearly whether we also want a pull flag and what it is that we'd want. > I > hope there aren't a proliferation of reordering strategies that we end up > wanting. I would be in favour of a "darcs splay" or "darcs shuffle" (probably better) or even "darcs bring(up)" kind of operation, where I could interactively (or with matchers) select what I want to bring near the top of the stack. It would be useful to both asses dependencies of a patch, examine it in the current context (diffs) and to do things like trackdown in the vicinity of a given patch, amend it or temporarily unpull/unrecord. (Then, if we had the already-proposed (IIRC) matchers to refer to presence of patches in external repositories, we could also have whatever pull --under would do, probably as a pattern using the more primitive notions.) Yours, Petr PS: I may be repeating myself, it's hard to recall what I already said and what I just thought. In that case, sorry for noise. -- id' Ash = Ash; id' Dust = Dust; id' _ = undefined _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
