On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:53:24PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote: > Two minor remarks. > > > 4.2.7 Reactivating a patch > > As promised in Section 4.1.3, it is possible to re-activate a previously > > deactivated patch p. First, it is likely the user will need to de-activate > > patches p conflicts with, as well as patches that conflict with p’s > > dependencies if those are also being re-activated. Section 4.2.6 explains > > how to deactivate these patches and the patches that depend on them. > > Obviously, dependencies of p /have/ to be reactivated along with p, so > the "if" is misleading here.
Thanks; reworded: https://hub.darcs.net/falsifian/misc-pub/patch/2343bc9d163b31df5a5f29de85641ac4e71d645c (I originally put the "if" there since p's dependencies might already all be active.) > > • Insert p and its dependencies into the chosen resolution. We already have > > a copy of them somewhere: recall that a tree repository is a pair (T, C); T > > and C together contain all active and deactivated patches in the repository. > > Some commuting may be needed. (TODO: elabourate?) > > Indeed this should be elaborated! Hm, I think it would follow from something like the "weak converse" I mention in the Aside at the end of 4.2.1. Maybe I should turn that into a lemma and use it here. Note I haven't read your later emails yet; I'm not sure if you commented on 4.2.1. > Cheers > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > darcs-users mailing list > darcs-users@osuosl.org > https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users -- James _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users