In short (and making referrence to record or amend-record),

-m "" : Records a patch with an empty name
-m "TAG foo": Records a patch whose name is ".TAG foo" (note TAG was
prefixed by a dot).

$ darcs rec -am ""

Finished recording patch ''

$ darcs rec -am "TAG foo"

Finished recording patch '.TAG foo'


Patch name prompt (interactive mode) prevents both empty patch names and
patch names starting with TAG, although it does not warn the user in any way
and just re-ask the user to introduce another patch name.


> Shall I record this change? (1/1)  [ynW...], or ? for more options: y

What is the patch name?

What is the patch name?

What is the patch name? TAG foo

What is the patch name?


Editing a patch long comment you can record a patch with an empty name and
also a patch name starting with TAG. The "cool" thing is that in this way
you can "automagically" convert a normal patch into a tag just giving a
patch name starting with TAG. Even more, you could amend a tag and remove
the TAG prefix converting it into a normal patch.

$ darcs tag 1.1

Finished tagging patch 'TAG 1.1'

$ darcs amend --edit

Sun Apr  3 09:55:13 WEST 2011  Iago Abal <iago.abal@gmail.com>

  tagged 1.1

Shall I amend this patch? [yN...], or ? for more options: y

Finished amending patch:

Sun Apr  3 09:55:18 WEST 2011  Iago Abal <iago.abal@gmail.com>

  * 1.1

$ darcs show tags

$ darcs amend --edit

Sun Apr  3 09:55:18 WEST 2011  Iago Abal <iago.abal@gmail.com>

  * 1.1

Shall I amend this patch? [yN...], or ? for more options: y

Finished amending patch:

Sun Apr  3 09:55:34 WEST 2011  Iago Abal <iago.abal@gmail.com>

  tagged  1.1

$ darcs show tags

 1.1



-- 
Iago Abal Rivas

Attachments

• unnamed

If I understand correctly, the bug here is that Darcs does not use the 
same mechanisms for catching patch names that have special meaning in 
Darcs, ie. TAG...) in the interactive UI as it does from the command 
line.  The interactive UI should be caught up.

Should be fixed, test case could be nice, but dunno if actually useful

See also issue2141.  We do still need (?) to give people a way to amend -
-edit tags.  Presumably we don't want to people to be able to 
accidentally convert tags into non-tags, vice versa