Matches for patch, 1691 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Wed Feb 03 18:17:43 UTC 2016 <punkman> ascii_butugychag: this looks useful when regrinding things https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theory#The_complex_undo_revisited
Wed Feb 03 18:17:43 UTC 2016 <assbot> Understanding Darcs/Patch theory - Wikibooks, open books for an open world ... ( http://bit.ly/1Kqo5u2 )
Wed Feb 03 18:14:10 UTC 2016 <assbot> Logged on 03-02-2016 18:10:43; punkman: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Understanding_Darcs/Patch_theory#Commutation
Wed Feb 03 18:10:43 UTC 2016 <assbot> Understanding Darcs/Patch theory - Wikibooks, open books for an open world ... ( http://bit.ly/1UKKpPF )
Wed Feb 03 18:07:58 UTC 2016 <PeterL> so in my example, if you add a patch d, it could equally be added to (-b) or (c') ?
Wed Feb 03 18:07:05 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> punkman: if a patch creates a cycle, it is ipso facto invalid.
Wed Feb 03 18:04:58 UTC 2016 <PeterL> is the antimatter patch the correct way to do it?
Wed Feb 03 18:04:37 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> or antimatter patch
Wed Feb 03 18:04:14 UTC 2016 <PeterL> if you have patches a->b->c and you decide to get rid of b, you should end up with a->b->c->(-b), not with a->c' (where c' is reground c without b patch) , do I understand correct?
Wed Feb 03 18:03:57 UTC 2016 <mod6> I'll probably just send the patch to the ML to recruit people to help me test over the next two weeks.
Wed Feb 03 18:03:40 UTC 2016 <mod6> in other news, ive got a patch for V that's not only the fix for the post-press hash checking, but also for the problem when running the graphing tool with a node that has no decendants. and a couple of small cleanup things.
Wed Feb 03 18:01:52 UTC 2016 <*> ascii_butugychag is still not sure why it was necessary to discard the history and compress the old patch + its fix into a new one
Wed Feb 03 17:58:12 UTC 2016 <phf> fwiw deleting a patch doesn't "remove it" as such, but ensures that all descendants are unpressable
Wed Feb 03 17:56:15 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> every patch ever written ~is in the tree~ as it appears to archaeologists
Wed Feb 03 17:52:53 UTC 2016 <polarbeard> so no patch replacements?
Wed Feb 03 17:51:46 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> ~patch submitter~ has the responsibility of coming up with a unique name.
Wed Feb 03 17:46:14 UTC 2016 <polarbeard> I mean a timestamp in the filename author_patch_thing_$(date +%s).vpatch
Wed Feb 03 17:46:08 UTC 2016 <jurov> anyway, matching the signature against all versions of one patch isn't so big thing to swallow
Wed Feb 03 17:43:50 UTC 2016 <ascii_butugychag> who are not the patch author