[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm |
Date: |
23 Feb 2004 10:34:43 +0900 |
Samuel Tardieu <address@hidden> writes:
> Unrecord removes a patch from the repository but does not touch the
> working directory.
>
> Of course, those operations can lead to dependency problems if new
> changes have been committed since change1 and change2. But Darcs will
> notice this and propose to unrecord those conflicting changes too, to
> let you do new record operations (equivalent of checkin in the local
> repository) regarding those changes.
Sounds like a mess to me (e.g., what if someone tagged off the erased
changeset? Whoops).
What's wrong with just doing the obvious (and oft-discussed in this
mailing list) thing, and committing a changeset that reverts the source
changes of the undesired changeset, but not its patch-logs? Then you
get the nice functionality without the messy history-alteration.
AFAIK the only thing missing in tla is a handy command to do it in one
easy step. I'm not entirely sure why -- to the best of my recollection,
the last time it was discussed the only disagreement involved command
syntax minutia (though I suppose it could be that I just forgot some Big
Problem)...
-Miles
--
I'd rather be consing.
- [Gnu-arch-users] patch implementing tla rm, Stefanie Tellex, 2004/02/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch implementing tla rm, Cameron Patrick, 2004/02/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch implementing tla rm, Stefanie Tellex, 2004/02/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] patch implementing tla rm, Tom Lord, 2004/02/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm, Samuel Tardieu, 2004/02/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm,
Miles Bader <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm, Samuel Tardieu, 2004/02/22
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: patch implementing tla rm, Miles Bader, 2004/02/22