On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Ben Franksen wrote:
Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
I've been thinking about this a bit more and I agree that tacking on an
orthogonal --skip-conflicts to the existing situation would be wrong.
Right now, we have the mutually exclusive set of options
--mark-conflicts, --allow-conflicts and --don't-allow-conflicts, and the
orthogonal option --external-merge, which can still affect the conflict
handling behaviour as I think you were complaining about previously.
This is madness! Just reading this gives me a headache. Please let us not
any further contemplate the issue while taking the existing set of options
for granted, they are not and they should not remain. The combined
semantics of all those separate options is already much too complicated.
Discussing how yet another addition to this jumble is more or less
intuitive sounds like a bad joke to me.
I propose you stop at this point and consider what a really good UI would
look like. You might consider my proposal to use an enumeration type value
to supply with a general --conflicts=whatever-method. Maybe that is too
simple in itself, but it is a step in the right direction instead of going
deeper and deeper into the swamp.
Well, in the bit you snipped, I did say that we should do something
different :-) The enumeration type proposal is one implementation of the
first thing I said, namely making a set of mutually exclusive options.
We do need to be quite careful about renaming existing options without a
very good reason, though. It might well be that the only way to achieve a
consistent result is to do so (and perhaps provide backwards compatibility
aliases), but we should tread carefully.
Cheers,
Ganesh
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
