# Ask before proceeding when unrecording a patch with dependencies

**URL:** <https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277>\
**Category:** Development\
**Created:** [February 4, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277 "2019-02-04T14:30:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 9\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tae](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/tae/32/81_2.png) [@tae](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/tae)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 2:30pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/1 "2019-02-04T14:30:23Z")

</div>

Playing around I realized that if I unrecord a patch with dependencies the dependencies are unrecorded as well. That’s expected but I think it something people won’t have in mind while working so it would be nice if

1. The log tells you if a patch has dependencies (maybe with a “Has dependencies” entry before the patch name) and
2. Ask before unrecord a patch with dependencies (e.g. “, , …, depend on this patch. Shall I unrecord it?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![flobec](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/flobec/32/23_2.png) [@flobec](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/flobec)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/2 "2019-02-04T14:44:34Z")

</div>

That would probably be better. Mind opening a request on [https://nest.pijul.com/pijul\_org/pijul:master/discussions](https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul:master/discussions) ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tae](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/tae/32/81_2.png) [@tae](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/tae)\
**Post date:** [February 4, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/3 "2019-02-04T15:00:26Z")

</div>

[Done](https://nest.pijul.com/pijul_org/pijul/discussions/358)!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![flobec](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/flobec/32/23_2.png) [@flobec](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/flobec)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 7:57am UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/4 "2019-02-05T07:57:13Z")

</div>

Thank you, that’s probably a good-first-contribution… (for whomever wants).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lthms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/lthms/32/124_2.png) [@lthms](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/lthms)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 9:16am UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/5 "2019-02-05T09:16:08Z")

</div>

There remains conflicts in pijul worktree that would prevent fist-contribution to happen, I am afraid.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![flobec](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/flobec/32/23_2.png) [@flobec](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/flobec)\
**Post date:** [February 5, 2019, 9:27am UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/6 "2019-02-05T09:27:35Z")

</div>

Shamefully, yes. An audit of the new diff code is needed and in (slow) progress on my side.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lthms](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/lthms/32/124_2.png) [@lthms](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/lthms)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2019, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/7 "2019-02-21T16:35:30Z")

</div>

@pmeunier sorry if I am being annoying, but I can’t get a conflict-free version of `pijul` from the `master` branch of the upstream. I see you have pushed a new patch today, so you have a merge patch somewhere?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pmeunier](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/pmeunier/32/4_2.png) [@pmeunier](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/pmeunier)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/8 "2019-02-23T23:25:34Z")

</div>

You are not being annoying at all, that bug was. It’s hopefully fixed now, sorry for the large patch.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pmeunier](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/discourse.pijul.org/pmeunier/32/4_2.png) [@pmeunier](https://discourse.pijul.org/u/pmeunier)\
**Post date:** [February 23, 2019, 11:27pm UTC](https://discourse.pijul.org/t/ask-before-proceeding-when-unrecording-a-patch-with-dependencies/277/9 "2019-02-23T23:27:45Z")

</div>

I don’t think the dependencies of a patch should be unrecorded, but the patches that depend on it can’t survive.

I believe the problem here is not in how libpijul::unrecord, but in how pijul::commands::ask produces a list.