On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 13:33:38 +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote: > However it's not completely obvious to me that --skip-conflicts really > is mutually exclusive with --don't-allow-conflicts. In particular, with > --don't-allow-conflicts but not --skip-conflicts, you'll get offered > every patch and then get a failure if any conflict. So if we accept your > argument, and you have --skip-conflicts as a default and then you > specify --don't-allow-conflicts on the command line, then suddenly > you'll get conflicting patches offered to you. My general feeling is > that --skip-conflicts may not be that useful as a default, and the more > likely use cases are for the user to specify --mark-conflicts or > --don't-allow-conflicts in the defaults file, and then to override that > on the command line with --skip-conflicts.
It sounds fairly reasonable to me to expect that people generally are not going to put --skip-conflicts in their defaults, and also to treat conflict choice as orthogonal to conflict resolution. --mark-conflicts and friends would have no effect when --skip-conflicts is around, but those not seem like a problem since --skip-conflicts is stronger anyway. -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpLP8eJboZjO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
