On 16 Mar 2009, at 15:31, Matthew Elder wrote:
> As Thomas says, the Darcs documentation strongly discourages thatWell, that was why I thought sending email notifications would be
> you do an obliteration on a shared repository. All the work that
> goes into having to notify people to obliterate it locally is one
> And suppose that someone doesn't get the notification to do this andTrue, but I would imagine this only being used after a very short
> pushes some new changes, the patch you just obliterated will show
> its ugly face again.
time. IE it's an emergency rescue operation.
There's another valid use for this - continuous integration. Say I
This CI application of obliterate would be a KILLER feature for me, as
> Overall I think that the idea of obliteration doesn't fit into theI see your perspective on this. And in general, I agree. However, I
> use case for a shared repository. Darcs rollback is the only sane
> way to do this. I know your history won't be as neat, but obliterate
> is a tool that is really only practical for a single author to
> single repo relationship -- AND before they share any of these
think there's a use for obliterate buried in there somewhere.
> I do like Thomases idea of being able to "revirginize" theYes, I think this could be useful too.
> repository without losing your metadata -- but again, this is in a
> different vein than the original obliterate idea. We really need to
> add some faqs and documentation about best practices :)
> Thank you for the feedback and please continue to keep us in theDon't worry, I'm an opinionated and vociferous user, I hope you can
> loop as you experience issues :)
put up with me =)
* it's how I earn my living...
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.