On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Hi,

Am Donnerstag, den 05.07.2012, 10:03 -0700 schrieb daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com:

...

Thu Jun 7 15:16:32 CEST 2012 daniel.trstenjak@gmail.com * Separate source and build directories The source files are still located in '~/.xmonad' and the build files and the xmonad binary are now put into '~/.xmonad_build'.

to avoid namespace pollution, why not ~/.xmonad/build?

Or ~/.cache/yi as yi and dmenu or other XDG followers do?

If you look a tad further down the patch list, you'll see it ends in ~/.cache/xmonad, presumably following the XDG spec, which was designed exactly to avoid namespace pollution.

What's the darcs way for cleaning up a set of patches? In git I would have done a 'git rebase --interactive' to clean up the patch set. I know some might cry out because of the history rewriting in git, but sometimes it's just handy.

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM, wrote:

Quoting Daniel Trstenjak :

...

...

If you look a tad further down the patch list, you'll see it ends in ~/.cache/xmonad, presumably following the XDG spec, which was designed exactly to avoid namespace pollution.

What's the darcs way for cleaning up a set of patches?

There's darcs amend-record, but I don't think it's necessary. This history is nicely transparent about how and why each change was made.

Agree. As long as it's documenting how and why something changed and the previous version wasn't incomplete or broken it's ok. What you should avoid is commits which do not build. That breaks bisecting.