darcs patch revision protocol

[Isaac Dupree]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

(cc'ing darcs-users as this is really a darcs issue)

Isaac Dupree wrote:
> Jason Dagit wrote:
>> On 5/22/07, Adam Langley <agl at imperialviolet.org> wrote:
>>> On 5/22/07, Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> nearest needs Num, but the other two shouldn't.
>>> That's a great point, I hadn't thought about that. I don't know if
>>> people usually send a correction patch, or remake the patch but I've
>>> done the former:
>> I can't speak for the protocol of this libraries list, but in
>> darcs-devel people usually use 'amend-record' when the changes are
>> small (like correcting a typo).
> 
> I prefer making another patch and sending the two patches together, as
> per the darcs manual
> http://www.darcs.net/manual/node7.html#SECTION00791000000000000000
> in case someone else has already applied the first patch, it makes darcs
> work better. (the changelog-spamming effect is unfortunate

hmm, would it make any sense for an amended patch to list the
identities/hashes of the patches that are obsoleted by it, so that this
effect isn't such a problem?  (Then there would be a functional reason
to use amend-record, so I could complain that there doesn't seem to be a
way to remove modifications from a patch using amend-record, just to add
them)

Isaac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGWLDLHgcxvIWYTTURArouAKC7jDqiNzL6/K2rvphiA6AiFnEf6wCg1J0+
F86+1fkAxTinzsHBlpNm0TE=
=GH0o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----