[darcs-users] rebase feedback and amend-record flexibility

[Ganesh Sittampalam]

On 11/04/2012 23:11, Michael Hendricks wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh at earth.li
> <mailto:ganesh at earth.li>> wrote:
> 
>     At the moment the only consequences of violating that advice are that
>     you end up with conflicting patches that are quite similar and in
>     practice you need to figure out which one to keep and which one to
>     eradicate.
> 
>     If we allowed editing of A without changing the identity of B which
>     implicitly depends on A, then you would get the much more nasty effects
>     described in this thread.
> 
> 
> Because of the restricted edits that squash allows, I'm not entirely
> convinced the effects are worse than what we have now.  I won't belabor
> the details.  Obviously, if I still think it's possible, I should code
> it up and send patches.  Patches speak louder than words :-)
> 
> Thanks Ganesh, Florent and others for taking time to answer my questions.

BTW, I also don't see why it's particularly useful to not edit B when
editing A which B implicitly depends on. If A hasn't been sent out, then
neither has B, so you're not losing much.

Cheers,

Ganesh