Feature Requests

I'd like to copy this comment from the RecordExtension page, as it equally applies here (and I think even more because the workflow of removing unnecessary things first, then checking the result and then committing it is much more natural than just committing parts of your workspace and hope for the best.

• Note that the original ThirdPartyShelveExtension does have that feature. And also an "--append" option to append additional hunks onto an existing shelf. --YitzGale

I would really like to have the ability to split hunks in this plugin. The problem is, that if there are multiple adjacent changes that have nothing to do with each other (like two new functions right next to each other) it is downright hard to commit them separately short of removing one, comitting and adding the other one again. --MartinHäcker

• Me too. git has this handy feature. --LesliePolzer

  • How does git do this? --ThurnerRupert

    • When using git add -p, you will enter the interactive mode, and do something similar with darcs|hg record. But in git you've the choice of 'e' to open up an editor, and edit the patch. There is an example[1] at the footer of this page. --WeakishJiang

• Yes, this feature of darcs record is missing. It would be great to have it. As described below, git does have it - using the e option to open an editor, like in darcs. However, I like the darcs approach, with a "before" and "after" section, better than the git approach of editing "+" and "-" markers. I find it cleaner. --YitzGale

  fyi: this has been available for some time with the CrecordExtension (based on RecordExtension), so maybe it wouldn't be too hard to incorporate some of the changes back into record. --MarkEdgington

  • crecord uses a curses interface, but record uses merely command line. so it's not very easy to specify how to split the hunks in record. Besides, crecord provides line-level granularity, which in most case is sufficient. But in some edge cases, we may have two changes doing different things in one line. The best practice I can think of right now is git's approach (manually editing the patch) explained above. --WeakishJiang

    I find crecord to be really clunky when dealing with sizable patches. It's slow, and requires me to scroll a lot unnecessarily. In addition to the (decent) interface in [1], git also has a powerful "interactive" interface. It's not user-friendly, but once you figure it out, it's much more efficient than crecord, and much more powerful than record. --JustinLebar

  Can you try out my Aurum plugin for Vim? It has AuRecord command that is as well makes you able to edit commited changes. --ZyX

Footnotes:

[1] a git example:

   1 $ git add -p f.c
   2 diff --git a/f.c b/f.c
   3 index a32488e..cf4b43e 100644
   4 --- a/f.c
   5 +++ b/f.c
   6 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
   7 -void splodge(int c) {
   8 +int blorf() { return s_blorfulocity / s_RAT; }
   9 +
  10 +void splodge(long c) {
  11  }
  12 Stage this hunk [y/n/a/d/e/?]? e
  13 
  14 4) External editor opens up with this content
  15 # Manual hunk edit mode -- see bottom for a quick guide
  16 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@
  17 -void splodge(int c) {
  18 +int blorf() { return s_blorfulocity / s_RAT; }
  19 +
  20 +void splodge(long c) {
  21  }
  22 # ---
  23 # To remove '-' lines, make them ' ' lines (context).
  24 # To remove '+' lines, delete them.
  25 # Lines starting with # will be removed.
  26 #
  27 # If the patch applies cleanly, the edited hunk will immediately be
  28 # marked for staging. If it does not apply cleanly, you will be given
  29 # an opportunity to edit again. If all lines of the hunk are removed,
  30 # then the edit is aborted and the hunk is left unchanged.