On 10 Apr 2009, at 05:58, Dan Pascu wrote:
I agree. I'd hate to see darcs enter a creeping-featurism area.
Commands
and switches should be as generic and orthogonal as possible, avoiding
commands or switches that are just particular shortcuts for particular
workflows.
Both your and Eric's replies make sense. I guess my sense of "local"
vs "remote" has become more acute since I started keeping all my repos
on Patch-Tag. I really *don't* want to do a `darcs push --mark-
conflicts` to there!
It seems to make sense to allow conflict marking on pushing, as long
as it's documented when you should and shouldn't do it. The current
output from `darcs push` is misleading though, as it doesn't explain
the why you can't --mark-conflicts.
I agree about my `darcs push --last-remote` being a bad idea. But
what about darcs keeping track of all the repositories you've pushed
to? That would avoid the annoying situation of having pushed to a
machine-local branch, only to find you can't now push to your usual
remote one.
I know there is already a workflow involving `darcs get`, but I have
to remember to do that. I don't like having to think too much when I
use darcs. If I wanted to have to think about what I was doing, I'd
use git =)
Ashley
--
http://www.patchspace.co.uk/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran
http://aviewfromafar.net/
http://twitter.com/ashleymoran
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
