On Friday 06 March 2009, Trent W. Buck wrote: > Dan Pascu <d...@ag-projects.com> writes: > > I do not see a problem with having the allow/mark options to push as > > well, for people who know better and really need this, but I think > > push should keep --dont-allow-conflicts as the default. > > +1 for --dont-allow-conflicts as the default in 2.3 -- both for push > *and* pull.
I think the default value should reflect the most used/expected behavior for that switch. I believe that while for push is --dont-allow-conflicts because the number of use cases when one wants to push a conflict in a remote repo is small, at the same time I believe that --mark-conflicts is a better default for pull as it is more common for users to want to allow and mark conflicts after a pull, in order to solve them. IMO, even though push and pull are symmetric operations, one is more symmetric than the other, as pull is clearly more usable and better suited when dealing with conflicts. Thus I think that the default value of the switch should reflect this asymmetry in usage. -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
