darcs

Patch 1822 add a comment explaining the commuting during revert

Title add a comment explaining the commuting during revert
Superseder Nosy List ganesh
Related Issues
Status accepted Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2019-06-14.12:30:20 by ganesh, last changed 2019-07-11.08:17:27 by ganesh.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
add-a-comment-explaining-the-commuting-during-revert.dpatch ganesh, 2019-06-14.12:30:20 application/x-darcs-patch
make-my-previous-comment-about-revert-make-sense.dpatch ganesh, 2019-06-15.10:58:51 application/x-darcs-patch
patch-preview.txt ganesh, 2019-06-14.12:30:20 text/x-darcs-patch
patch-preview.txt ganesh, 2019-06-15.10:58:51 text/x-darcs-patch
unnamed ganesh, 2019-06-14.12:30:20 text/plain
unnamed ganesh, 2019-06-15.10:58:51 text/plain
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg20794 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2019-06-14.12:30:20
1 patch for repository darcs-unstable@darcs.net:screened:

patch 93b6c98cfb009a4f76a53604dcfea2fa6bf58506
Author: Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh@earth.li>
Date:   Fri Jun 14 13:29:00 BST 2019
  * add a comment explaining the commuting during revert
  
  I also renamed the variables to make things clearer
Attachments
msg20806 (view) Author: bf Date: 2019-06-14.18:01:36
+                    So we need 'torevert' with 'norevert', and if 
that fails then keep we
+                    need to keep some of 'norevert' in the actual 
unrevert patch so it
+                    still makes sense.

This sentence was probably not ment to be written as is. Could you 
fix that? It's a bit hard for me to guess what it was meant to say 
exactly.
msg20811 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2019-06-14.22:23:52
Sorry, my ability to proof-read what I've just written seems to
have completely deserted me.

How's this? I also added some more explanation.

`
{- The user has split unrecorded into the sequence 'norevert' then 'torevert',
   which is natural as the bit we keep in unrecorded should have recorded
   as the context.

   But the unrevert patch also needs to have recorded as the context, not
   unrecorded (which can be changed by the user at any time).

   So we need to commute 'torevert' with 'norevert', and if that fails then
   we need to keep some of 'norevert' in the actual unrevert patch so it
   still makes sense. The use of genCommuteWhatWeCanRL minimises the amount
   of 'norevert' that we need to keep.
-}
`
msg20815 (view) Author: bf Date: 2019-06-15.07:50:05
> {- The user has split unrecorded into the sequence 'norevert' then 'torevert',
>    which is natural as the bit we keep in unrecorded should have recorded
>    as the context.
> 
>    But the unrevert patch also needs to have recorded as the context, not
>    unrecorded (which can be changed by the user at any time).
> 
>    So we need to commute 'torevert' with 'norevert', and if that fails then
>    we need to keep some of 'norevert' in the actual unrevert patch so it
>    still makes sense. The use of genCommuteWhatWeCanRL minimises the amount
>    of 'norevert' that we need to keep.
> -}

Perfect.
msg20832 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2019-06-15.10:58:51
Here's the patch with that text, I'll treat this as as accepted.

1 patch for repository darcs-unstable@darcs.net:screened:

patch 70e9da946995f466288989d3d1e82d43c4a7a6f3
Author: Ganesh Sittampalam <ganesh@earth.li>
Date:   Sat Jun 15 09:01:56 BST 2019
  * Make my previous comment about revert make sense
  
  Also added a bit more detailed explanation.
Attachments
History
Date User Action Args
2019-06-14 12:30:20ganeshcreate
2019-06-14 13:34:18ganeshsetstatus: needs-screening -> needs-review
2019-06-14 18:01:36bfsetmessages: + msg20806
2019-06-14 22:23:52ganeshsetmessages: + msg20811
2019-06-15 07:50:05bfsetmessages: + msg20815
2019-06-15 10:58:51ganeshsetfiles: + patch-preview.txt, make-my-previous-comment-about-revert-make-sense.dpatch, unnamed
messages: + msg20832
2019-06-15 11:31:18ganeshsetstatus: needs-review -> accepted-pending-tests
2019-07-11 08:17:27ganeshsetstatus: accepted-pending-tests -> accepted