On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:37:47PM +0200, Tommy Pettersson wrote:
> David Roundy wrote:
> > Having heard the limitations (at least with how I would actually implement
> > it), do you still think a --force option would be nice? It wouldn't be very
> > hard to implement... the main question is whether it would end up leading
> > to confusion.
>
> At present I can do:
>
> $ cat a
> foo
> bar
> $ darcs replace foo gaz a; cat a
> gaz
> bar
> $ [manually edit `bar' to `gaz']; cat a
> gaz
> gaz
> $darcs whatsnew
> {
> hunk ./a 2
> -bar
> +foo
> replace ./a [A-Za-z_0-9] foo gaz
> }
> $ [revert only the replace patch]; cat a
> foo
> foo
>
> so this is already an "issue". With enough understanding,
> best thing would of course be if replace was easy.
Hmmm. Yes, it does seem that adding the --force option (with perhaps a
different name) wouldn't be too bad, and it certainly would be convenient.
I think I'll do it when I get time.
> By the way, if I unrevert a reverted replace patch it turns
> into ordinary hunks. Is that a bug?
Yes it is! It seems that I wrote unrevert before I created the
"sift_for_pending" function which is needed for this purpose... Thanks for
mentioning this! I've already got a fix in, and the problem didn't just
affect replace, it also affected adds, removes and moves.
--
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org
|
