Ben Franksen wrote: > Eric Kow wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 14:28:29 +0100, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote: >>> With just --don't-allow-conflicts, conflicting patches are presented >>> during interactive selection, but selecting one causes a later >>> failure. >>> >>> With just --skip-conflicts, conflicting patches are not presented >>> during interactive selection. >> >> It sounds like we have really three cascading choices here: >> >> --offer-conflicts >> --dont-offer-conflicts >> >> --allow-conflicts >> --dont-allow-conflicts >> >> --mark-conflicts >> --dont-mark-conflicts >> >> With the each later one in the sequence being effectively meaningless >> if you select 'dont' for the one before it. > > I suggest that /any/ tuple of mutually exclusive options be bundled > into one option with an argument: > > --offer-conflicts=[yes|no] > --allow-conflicts=[yes|no] > --mark-conflicts=[yes|no] > > (Please read on before answering, this is not my final proposal.) > > This makes the that fact that they are mutually exclusive much more > obvious to the user. It also reduces the number of option names the > user has to remember and removes the confusion resulting from > different ways to express negation (as in --dont-compress vs. > --no-summary). > > In this particular case I'd argue for an enumeration of all sensible > combinations, especially since they are nested: > > --handle-conflicts=[none|offer|allow|mark] > > with > > none: > no conflicts allowed, don't even offer conflicting patches > offer: > offer (list) conflicting patches but do not allow them to be > applied allow: > allow conflicts, don't mark them > mark: > allow conflicts, mark them (default) > > (Please regard the names of the option values as provisional, they an > surely be improved.) > > One point to consider w.r.t. 'offer': This would be a lot more useful > if the user is forewarned that she will not be able to apply the > patch (taking patches the user has already selected into > consideration, if necessary).
One extra point to throw into the mix which I should have made clearer earlier: the skip/offer behaviour also affects what the --all option does, i.e. when interactive patch selection is bypassed/treated as saying 'y' to everything. I think that perhaps makes the use of the word "offer" inappropriate, unless we somehow split the scenario where --all is used from the one where interactive selection actually happens. Ganesh =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html =============================================================================== _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
