On 7 Dec 2010, at 16:03, Florent Becker wrote:
You'd still have to unrecord if you want to do that. The other
solution
is to have darcs whatsnew take a --from-{p,m}atch argument, like darcs
diff, so that you can say darcs whatsnew --from-patch "CONFLICT
AUTO-BACKUP". Incident question: shouldn't we merge diff and whatsnew,
with darcs whatsnew being an alias for "darcs diff --darcs-format"?
That can be fine, but IMO whatsnew should stay, even if an alias.
People are used to it and typing
darcs wh -sl
is definetly more convenient than
darcs diff --darcs-format -sl
Plus I'm not sure you can aggregate the command line switches for the
2 commands.
If this proposal goes through, then a --force option would
definitely be
very useful, but it will also be a bit confusing from a UI
perspective.
We already have --allow-conflicts, --dont-allow-conflicts and
--mark-conflicts
[snip]
In other words the existing options that deal with
allowing/denying/marking conflicts have lost their original meaning
as
they are now dependent on the --force option. Which takes 3 clear
options and makes them into a matrix of 6 option combinations that is
hard to comprehend.
This means the force/no-force should be independant of conflicts.
The way I see it (renaming --force into --allow-unrecorded-changes):
- -with --allow-unrecorded-changes: current behaviour
- -without it (ie, --no-allow-unrecorded-changes): if you have
unrecorded
changes, stop before offering patches to pull, then proceed as
usual. Or
offer to auto-record the changes, then proceed as usual, as above.
Indeed, having something like --allow-unrecorded-changes is a lot
better than --force. Better semantics, better meaning and no conflict
with the existing conflict handling options.
I would be perfectly happy with such an option.
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
