On 1 Oct 2009, at 16:21, Trent W. Buck wrote:
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.
I think that should be fairly easy to handle. The standard way of
handling options is to consider the hardcoded internal defaults, the
global config file, the local config file and the command line
options, in this order, the later sources overwriting the settings
from the former ones.
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
