On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <gan...@earth.li> wrote: > I don't think there's a way to disable it. FWIW it took me a while to > get used to it, but now I don't really notice it. I'm not sure whether > it's been a net benefit or not, though.
The reason I took so long to bring it up is that I thought I might get used to it. I actually downgraded at one point for other reasons and the old way seemed nicer. > I don't remember the rationale that well either. I think the name of the > feature when it was in development was "last regrets", so you might find > something if you search for that. I did find a mention, basically just what you said though. > From what I do remember, the main reason was actually precisely the > problem that's hitting you in reverse; after a long selection session > people were making a decision on the final hunk/patch and then finding > the command finished without them getting a final chance to review. The > behaviour with a single patch is obviously a bit silly in itself, but > was left that way to avoid special cases in the UI which might also be > confusing. Yeah, for whatever reason that never happened to me. I guess if I've gone through a bunch of patches I'm not going to suddenly realize "wait except #64". Too much bother to try to find it. I'm going to record, edit the file normally, and then amend. Once the number of hunks gets high, it's a lot easier to just go edit the files rather than navigate the hunk selector. Part of that is that hunk selection state is one of the few fragile and non-undoable things. Actually I've always thought that rather than edit hunks, I'd prefer a feature to quit the record but save the answers until now. Then I can edit it in vim normally, not in the confusing diff display, and rerecord with a replay up to that point. With a bit of editor integration, I could replace the hunk display with telling the editor to jump there. Then I get full context and I can edit as I see fit, and hit a button to restart and replay the record if I made a change. This would also solve the problem where you make a change in the hunk editor but now you can't test it or go out of the hunk bounds and then when you record you've got to either make the same change in the file or revert to the new version, and then your editor hassles you about how the file changed and offers to destroy any unsaved local changes, etc. But that's nontrivial and I'm sure is in "patches welcome" territory. Maybe I'll look into how to add a flag to disable the prompts. >> Also, is there any way to have 'record' go back to asking for a one >> line summary and only opening the editor if you tell it to? The >> previous behaviour was more convenient for me because the accepted >> hunks are right there to remind me what the summary line should be. >> The current way immediately clears them off of the screen and I have >> to go to a different window for a 'darcs w' to remind myself what they >> were. > > You can use --prompt-long-comment, or put 'record prompt-long-comment' > into ~/.darcs/defaults Indeed this works, thanks! _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
