Thought it was a good idea to include the weak hash for bug reports.
On second thought, anyway, it probably doesn't add much value. I'm going to
leave the decision to whoever is screening this.

1 patch for repository valentina:var/repos/darcs/screened:

patch a48139fef50e583b7d029b6b875f718c30b7588c
Author: Gian Piero Carrubba <gpiero@rm-rf.it>
Date:   Thu Mar  9 14:59:15 CET 2017
  * Include the weak hash in the output of --exact-version

Attachments

• include-the-weak-hash-in-the-output-of-__exact_version.dpatch
• patch-preview.txt

* [Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:56:40PM +0000] Gian Piero Carrubba:
>1 patch for repository valentina:var/repos/darcs/screened:
>
>patch a48139fef50e583b7d029b6b875f718c30b7588c
>Author: Gian Piero Carrubba <gpiero@rm-rf.it>
>Date:   Thu Mar  9 14:59:15 CET 2017
>  * Include the weak hash in the output of --exact-version

Please don't accept it, it causes cabal haddock to fail with:

("darcs",["show","repo"])
darcs: runInteractiveProcess: runInteractiveProcess: exec: does not 
exist (No such file or directory)

Ciao,
Gian Piero.

Marking as rejected as requested, feel free to update the status or just 
open a new patch if you want to follow up.

Fixed version.

Attachments

• include-the-weak-hash-in-the-output-of-__exact_version.dpatch

Good idea, screening it.

I have mixed feelings. I don't think this is very useful right now. The
weak hash gives us less information than the full context, and  we
currently lack a mechanism to retrieve a context from a weak hash,
althought we may have one in the future.

On the other hand the implementation of this feature is harmless.

So, I'm accepting it, I must say, mostly because it has already been
screened. Maybe next time, please share the reasons *why* adding some
feature is a good idea :)