[darcs-users] darcs rebase

[Ben Franksen]

Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
> On 29/06/2013 15:31, Ben Franksen wrote:
>> I have two questions / requests regarding the new rebase command. I am 
>> refering to the version from the current screened repo.
>> 
>> (1) It seems the rebase command is missing a way for the user to view the 
>> suspended patches. Is this something that is in the works? Or did I just 
>> miss it somehow?
> 
> That's in the works, hopefully I'll get it submitted soon. It'll
> probably be called 'darcs rebase changes'.

Cool, I was hoping to hear that.

>> (2) The rebase command does not allow me to 'force-commute' two patches. 
I 
>> thought that the idea of rebase was to allow that. I dimly remember that 
in 
>> an earlier version 'darcs rebase unsuspend' allowed me to select a 
suspended 
>> patch without also selecting the (suspended) patches it depends upon. 
This 
>> is currently not possible. (I may well remember this wrongly, in which 
case 
>> you can regard this a feature request.)
> 
> I'd like to support this, and I think I tried once but the code ended up
> a mess so I wanted to rethink. In the meantime you can workaround as
> follows:
> 
> - Suppose you want to force commute A and B (i.e. B depends on A)
> - clone your repository, and in the clone, suspend A and B, then rebase
> obliterate A, and unsuspend B and deal with the conflicts
> - in the original repository, obliterate B and suspend A, then pull in
> the fixed up B, and unsuspend A and deal with the conflicts

Ah, thanks a lot! I had not thought of using rebase obliterate.

>> The reason I want to do that is that I want to pull a fix from 
development 
>> branch to stable branch, but the fix (accidentally) depends on some 
complex 
>> development change I made. Of course I expect to get conflicts when I 
>> finally unsuspend the "complex change" /after/ the "fix" and I am ready 
to 
>> resolve them manually. I would even expect having to do some conflict 
>> resolution when unsuspending just the fix.
> 
> Yeah, this definitely makes sense, just needs some work to support
> nicely. In an ideal world, I think you'd also only have to deal with the
> conflicts once: whatever you do to resolve B should also imply how to
> resolve A. That'll be a step further though :-)

It would be extremely cool to only have to resolve the conflicts once. If 
you can manage to implement this, you'd have a happy regular user in me ;-)

Cheers & Thanks for the quick reply.
-- 
Ben Franksen
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachm€nts