On 07/03/2016 22:57, Evan Laforge wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <gan...@earth.li> wrote:
>> 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. Yeah. "amend --unrecord" (which I think came along later than last regrets) is another thing that can help with that. > 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. Interesting idea - one difficulty I see is how you save the answers. If you do it positionally, then any subsequent edits to the source tree would make them invalid. Doing it textually would make the whole thing pretty big. More sophisticated interactive selection is definitely interesting in general. One thing I'd like to see is a graphical interface (e.g. integrated with darcsden). A nicely done interface could make it easy to record multiple patches and revert some hunks simultaneously, which is often something I find myself wanting when doing a big record. FWIW when I searched briefly I came across this post where Ben Franksen expresses fairly similar opinions/ideas to yours: http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2013-July/026900.html > Maybe I'll look into how to add a flag to disable the prompts. A flag seems reasonable to me - I've heard other people complaining about it too. Cheers, Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
