twb> Why do we have `darcs changes --context' instead of `darcs show
twb> context'?

mornfall> Dunno.  It would make sense to use show context indeed.
mornfall> Also since changes --context doesn't take half the options
mornfall> the rest of changes does.  Or maybe none of them.

I'd like to keep changes --context, and have it take the --interactive flag, in
order to be able to create a context file that corresponds to a point in the
past (maybe fictive past).

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:30:58AM -0000, Florent Becker wrote:
> 
> Florent Becker <florent.becker@ens-lyon.org> added the comment:
> 
> I'd like to keep changes --context, and have it take the --interactive flag, in
> order to be able to create a context file that corresponds to a point in the
> past (maybe fictive past).

I can also see how --tag, --to-match and --to-patch would be useful
for creating context files that correspond to a subset of the current
repository's patches.

I could go either way on this one.

On the one hand, we want to fight command proliferation.
On the other hand, we want commands to have fairly consistent behaviour

Given issue1534, I can see that it would make good sense to deprecate changes
--context and have a separate show context command instead.

My specific reason is that changes --context should not accept the same set of
matchers as changes does, they should not mean the same thing (they should
include dependencies).