On 11/04/2012 23:11, Michael Hendricks wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > At the moment the only consequences of violating that advice are that > you end up with conflicting patches that are quite similar and in > practice you need to figure out which one to keep and which one to > eradicate. > > If we allowed editing of A without changing the identity of B which > implicitly depends on A, then you would get the much more nasty effects > described in this thread. > > > Because of the restricted edits that squash allows, I'm not entirely > convinced the effects are worse than what we have now. I won't belabor > the details. Obviously, if I still think it's possible, I should code > it up and send patches. Patches speak louder than words :-) > > Thanks Ganesh, Florent and others for taking time to answer my questions.
BTW, I also don't see why it's particularly useful to not edit B when editing A which B implicitly depends on. If A hasn't been sent out, then neither has B, so you're not losing much. Cheers, Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
