patch: tweak wording on incorrect indentation error

or-suggest-brackets-and-indentation.patch Description: Binary data PS: Seems like more prominent instructions on how to send a patch could be useful, perhaps a link to http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/WorkingConventions/Git from HACKING? -- Eric Kow <http://erickow.com>

[issue1034] pull => errors in pending (2.0.2+76)

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Thorkil: Thanks for the diligent tracking. Claus: any suggestions in how to reproduce this would be welcome. Reading your past comment more carefully, I noticed this > it is just possible that the Cabal repo I pulled into already had &

[issue1067] get => Unapplicable patch (2.0.2+76) (ok with 1.0.9; case sensitivity)

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Summarising: 1. darcs get fails because of case insensitivity on an old fashioned repository 2. getting a hashed copy of this works fine [I've tried] 3. surprisingly, darcs 1.0.9 succeeds in this case Since hashed repositories work, I

[issue1065] Unexpected changes in working directory

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 10:40:23 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: > He says it is an old repository that he's pulling into, hence > lots of patches to pull. But the list of patches doesn't include > the renaming that is report

[issue1065] Unexpected changes in working directory

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:38:07 +0100, Claus Reinke wrote: > I don't understand? Simon's report starts with 'More darcs2 woe', > darcs2 came out in 2008, issue494 claims to have been resolved > by a patch in

[issue1065] Unexpected changes in working directory

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: This still looks like issue494 to me, and I am resolving it as such. The symptoms: To simplify, first patch adds f1; second patch moves f1 -> f2 and modifies f2 And whatsnew shows f2 -> f1 (inverse) A f2 R f1 If only w

[issue1067] darcs 2.0.2 (+ 76 patches) fails where darcs 1.0.9 (release) succeeds (windows, ghc repo, get)

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Hi, On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 23:35:17 -, Claus Reinke wrote: > $ darcs get c:/fptools/ghc > Unapplicable patch: > Thu Jan 11 14:26:13 GMT Standard Time 1996 partain > * [project @ 1996-01-11 14:06:51 by partain] I think yo

[issue1034] pull => errors in pending (2.0.2+76)

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: I need a volunteer to do the following: 1. get a copy of libraries/Cabal from darcs.haskell.org 2. identify approximately the patches that would have gone into GHC 6.9.20080816 and 20080807 respectively 3. zip these up for forensics 4. (pre

[issue1034] darcs 2 and ghc..

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 20:53:21 -, Claus Reinke wrote: > 1. I have a local copy of ghc head + corelibs + extralibs repos, > obtained a while ago by the usual hack of downloading tar-file, > then ./darcs-all pull and ge

[issue829] pull => bug in get_extra commuting patch

Any chance this was a partial repository? For what it's worth, I now have darcs 1.0.9 as well as darcs 2.0.0 on my machine, so if there's any specific steps I can take to reproduce this, let me know. __ Darcs bug tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue829] pull => bug in get_extra commuting patch

Simon/Norman: what version of darcs was this? I'm hoping this is something that darcs2 has already fixed. More specifically, looking at issue279, I understand that David has fixed a get_extra commuting patch bug between darcses 1.0.9 and 2.0.0. -- nosy: +kowey priority: -> bug status:

[issue830] trouble getting repo up to date

Duplicate of issue829 (sorry, Simon; our bugtracker has been posting double-bugs for a while now and we haven't figured out why yet) -- nosy: +kowey priority: -> bug status: unread -> resolved superseder: +trouble getting repo up to date __ Darcs bug tra

[issue560] Getting source code

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Is there any chance at all that Simon M's strict readFile would be helpful here, adapted to FastPackedString? Or are they irrelevant here, for example, because we are already doing something like it? http://www.haskell.org//piperm

[issue359] unrecord => failed to read patch in get_extra

Eric Kow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: Closing as a duplicate of issue317 (I don't really know, but it seems like a reasonable guess) -- status: need-eg -> duplicate superseder: +darcs fails to unrecord a patch I just recorded (failed to read patch in get