darcs

Patch 2308 remove withContext/unified option except for non-interactive whatsnew

Title remove withContext/unified option except for non-interactive whatsnew
Superseder Nosy List bfrk
Related Issues
Status accepted Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2023-06-17.08:29:55 by bfrk, last changed 2023-07-15.22:55:39 by ganesh.

Files
File name Status Uploaded Type Edit Remove
generalize-contextual-printing-of-patches.dpatch bfrk, 2023-06-17.08:29:50 application/x-darcs-patch
patch-preview.txt bfrk, 2023-06-17.08:29:49 text/x-darcs-patch
See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.
Messages
msg23322 (view) Author: bfrk Date: 2023-06-17.08:29:50
3 patches for repository http://darcs.net/screened:

patch d247947d1f2ded1fafbc1495059287d41fd27e3c
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Tue Nov 16 12:51:36 CET 2021
  * generalize contextual printing of patches

  By using runApplyMonad, it no longer requires ApplyState p ~ Tree.

patch 62be71ea50d25e5ca8bf33ef363a1ca32a63e797
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Tue Nov 16 12:40:55 CET 2021
  * whatsnew: remove display of context lines in interactive mode

  As with other commands, context lines cannot be correctly displayed in
  interactive mode because we don't (currently) track which changes have been
  applied.

patch 4d70f3af1951fe7226380c16d209407539f228b8
Author: Ben Franksen <ben.franksen@online.de>
Date:   Tue Nov 16 14:32:05 CET 2021
  * remove withContext/unified option except for non-interactive whatsnew

  The way this was integrated with the interactive patch selection never
  worked correctly because we did not track the changes to the state and
  instead used the same state for each patch, regardless of whether the patch
  in question even makes sense in that context. Fixing this would require a
  major refactor of interactive selection in order to keep track of the state
  for the patch in focus. In particular, the PatchChoices data type would have
  to be either abandoned or re-written to store patches together with their
  start state (which perhaps could be made lazy enough to keep the current
  performance profile).
Attachments
msg23580 (view) Author: ganesh Date: 2023-07-15.22:46:31
OK - I'd never noticed the context lines were wrong but it sounds 
plausible.
History
Date User Action Args
2023-06-17 08:29:55bfrkcreate
2023-06-17 08:30:20bfrksetstatus: needs-screening -> needs-review
2023-07-15 22:46:31ganeshsetstatus: needs-review -> accepted-pending-tests
messages: + msg23580
2023-07-15 22:55:39ganeshsetstatus: accepted-pending-tests -> accepted