On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, 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.
In this particular case, the natural code behaviour will be that
--skip-conflicts is "stronger" than --dont-allow-conflicts or
--mark-conflicts, in that it will cause the list of patches to be filtered
appropriately before the other options are even considered, which in turn
would mean that the other options had no effect.
I could of course make it do something different with more effort. Not
sure if this is warranted.
Ganesh
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
