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 reported the wrong way round in wha
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 August 2007. How can a patch from a year ago
solve an issue in a version of darcs that should
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 August 2007. How can a patch from a year
This still looks like issue494 to me, and I am resolving it as such.
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 August 2007. How can a patch from a year ago
solve an issue in a version of darcs t
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 we could boil issue
