Lele Gaifax <l...@metapensiero.it>: > Well, even conceding the file specialty, and more than that acknowledging > the extraordinary beauty of the darcs model, it too considers a patch > spanning several files as an atomic operation.
Yes. Darcs wants to get it right. > So, even if it makes very very easy to "cherry-pick" a given > changeset, it still insist in carrying in all the changes it involves: > in your scenario, you'd still need to withdraw the (unwanted) > modifications applied to the other files, recording an additional > changeset with the reverts. Darcs would probably be perfect, conceptually. According to rumors (the Wikipedia article, for example), that rigor can come with a severe performance penalty. So we have two approximations of the Darcs ideal: file-level and repo-level. The repo-level approximation is over-protective, the file-level approximation is under-protective. I prefer the slight under-protection to over-protection. (I guess that's I'm using Python in the first place.) Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
