On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 10:22 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > Aye, that will require some metadata on the git side (the hack,
> > > suggested by Linus, of using git hashes to notice moves won't work).
>
> > So, why won't it work?
>
> Because two files can legitimately have identical contents
Thanks for your patience.
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 16:32 -0700, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> >Give me a case where assuming it's a replace will do the wrong thing,
> >for C code, where it's a variable or function name.
> try this:
> initial patch creates hello.c
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char *
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 16:00 -0700, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
>
> >Here's where we disagree. If you checkpoint your tree before the
> >replace, and immediately after, the only differences in the
> >source-controlled files would be due to the replace.
&g
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 19:03 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Pop quiz:
> Here is revision 1 of my file:
> abcde
>
> Here is revision 2:
> wow
> Now, did I do that with a darcs replace, or just by typing?
I'm still not communicating well.
Give me a case where assuming it's a replace will do t
(Sorry for the delayed reply -- I'm living on tape delay for a bit.)
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 22:05 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:
> The other is "replace very instace of identifier `foo` with
> identifier`bar`".
> >>>
> >>>That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1].
> >>
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 02:55 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > But avoiding "mv" patches would be downright silly.
>
> Aye, that will require some metadata on the git side (the hack,
> suggested by Linus, of using git hashes to notice moves won't work).
Okay, I'm coming to believe I missed some
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:05 -0400, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >>The other is "replace very instace of identifier `foo` with
> >>identifier`bar`".
> > That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1].
>
> No, it can't. Seriously. A darcs replace patch is encoded as rules, not
> effects
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 21:04 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The other is "replace very instace of identifier `foo` with identifier`bar`".
That could be derived, however, by a particularly smart parser [1].
Alternately, that itself could be embedded in the comment for patches
sourced from darcs.
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 15:46 +1000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Add tool to render git's " " into an RFC2822-compliant
> string, because I don't think date(1) can do it.
I admit it's not obvious, but date(1) includes gnu's full date parser,
so you can pull stunts like:
ray:~/work/home$ date -ud 'jan
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 08:20 -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> Putting darcs patches *into* git is more complicated, since we'll want to
> get them back again without modification. Normal "hunk" patches would be
> no problem, provided we never change our diff algorithm (which has been
> discussed recent
10 matches
Mail list logo
