On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 19:49:17 +0100, Ashley Moran wrote: > How about making `darcs push --mark-conflicts` and `darcs push --allow- > conflicts` only work on local repositories? That way the workflow would > be:
Interesting suggestion, but I think we're best off keeping things as simple as possible here. Besides, "remote" and "local" are a bit arbitrary to me. What if you're dealing with a network share (mounted as /foo), for example? > WDYT? > > As a second thought, this makes me also wonder if there'd be benefit in > being able to: > % darcs push --last-remote I'm not particularly keen on adding new switches to darcs unless there is a compelling reason. So if we can find an acceptable workflow that doesn't need one, that's better. New switches are nice when they cover a lot of different ground at once on the other hand (thus obviating any future requests for new switches...) -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpZXuk5ISmto.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
