Dan Pascu <[email protected]> writes: > I think I find having a new option (--skip-conflicts) to be much > cleaner (and clearer) as I give an exact indication of what I want: I > accept to take just the non-conflicting patches. At the same time the > --dont-allow-conflicts option has already established a well defined > meaning among users which does not suggest a partial operation. > Changing its meaning will not only make its behavior surprising to > older users, but the non-atomicity of the new behavior can make it > troublesome especially for push, since the user didn't indicate that > it's OK to have a non-atomic pull/push and he may only find it > afterwards that he brought the code in the repository in a non- > functional state.
What happens if both are specified? Currently I make dont-allow-conflicts the default in my .darcs/defaults, but I'd like to be able to supersede that behaviour by supplying --skip-conflicts on the command line. I guess these simply become a quaternary choice (along with --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts), and the last one supplied takes precedence. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
