That way, it would be possible to add semantic dependencies (e.g., this patch relies on the feature introduced by this other patch, even if they do not have any line change in common).
darcs has this, and it is a nice thing to have. Yet it is not clear if we want this semantic dependencies to be treated like actual dependencies, or just be metadata that the user can opt to ignore.
I do not have any strong opinion about this, to be honest. The latter seems more flexible of course and that can be a strong advantage.
This is, I think, the last feature I really miss.
This is, I think, the last feature I really miss. Like, a lot.