Consider the following transcript.

    $ darcs --version
    1.0.8 (release)
    you have mail
    $ darcs --exact-version
    darcs compiled on Jul  4 2006, at 20:08:54
    # configured Fri Jun 16 14:55:21 EDT 2006
    ./configure --no-create --no-recursion

    Context:

    [TAG 1.0.8
    Tommy Pettersson <ptp@lysator.liu.se>**20060616160213]
    $ x=`mktemp -d /tmp/XXXXXX`
    $ cd $x
    $ darcs init
    $ echo foo >foo
    $ echo bar >bar
    $ darcs add foo
    $ darcs rec -am foo
    Finished recording patch 'foo'
    $ echo yd |
    > darcs rec -lam bar --ask-deps bar
    Recording changes in "bar":

    Wed Nov  1 19:21:47 EST 2006  Trent Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com>
      * foo
    Shall I depend on this patch? (1/?)  [ynWvpxqadjkc], or ? for help:
    Finished recording patch 'bar'
    $ darcs w -s
    R ./foo
    $

Why does darcs think bar has been removed?
Is this the correct behaviour?
-- 
Trent Buck, Student Errant

This is weird and wonderful.  Thanks for taking the effort to find a
minimal example.  Here is a somewhat smaller example:

cd `mktemp -d /tmp/XXXXX`
darcs init
touch a
darcs add a
darcs record -am foo
echo y | darcs record -am foo --ask-deps foo
darcs what -s

Indeed we get something saying that foo has been removed.

Note that --look-for-adds is not needed to make this happen; however
specifying some file on the command line is.  You can even do this on
any old file, for example, just touch bar and this will happen.

In any case, it's worth putting this into the test suite.

This seems to have been fixed by David's latest fixes for pending.
I can not reproduce the bug with current unstable.
Can anyone confirm?

I'm guessing that this is the patch Tommy is referring to:

Sat Dec  9 23:39:16 CET 2006  David Roundy <droundy@darcs.net>
  * fix pending bug that broke several_commands.sh.

I can reproduce it with 1.0.9 but not with stable