On 5 Oct 2009, at 22:51, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:
If they are mutually exclusive, I assume that the program will
decide what option to use before it starts to do anything. So if I
have skip-conflicts in the defaults file but I give --dont-allow-
conflicts on the command line, then indeed I expect that skip-
conflicts (specified in the defaults) is completely suppressed and
ignored.
Right, and I am saying that this behaviour, while straightforward to
implement, might be rather confusing.
Here is where we view things differently. I find it straight forward
to see them as mutually exclusive, because then I know that the last
one specified is the one that has an effect. Otherwise I would have to
keep in mind the relations between them as well as what options was
set in every place (internal defaults, global and local defaults file
and command line) and to mentally compute the result of their
combination. This is hardly something I want to do or find it to be
simple/intuitive.
I feel like I'm missing something here.
The problem is not with the implementation, but with the user
confusion that might result from the addition of --dont-allow-
conflicts causing conflicting patches to be offered in interactive
selection when they weren't previously.
But this I do not understand. Why do you say that if I specify --dont-
allow-conflicts on the command line and the options are mutually
exclusive, so --dont-allow-conflicts actually wins and discards
whatever else default is in the defaults file, still I get conflicting
patches being offered?
But perhaps the fact that I'm finding it so hard to get across what
I mean shows that my preferred behaviour is actually the more
confusing one.
That may be, because honestly every time you explained more of your
point of view, it got more confusing for me. Even now, I cannot really
say that I entirely understood your point of view.
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
