On 25/09/2020 13:46, Ben Franksen wrote: > Since 2.16 the --not-in-remote option is supported for all operations > that edit the history: amend, rebase suspend, obliterate, and unrecord. > > Should we make this the default behavior?
I'm weakly in favour. > Now, if --not-in-remote becomes the default, how do we name the option > that negates it? Simply dropping the "not" as in --in-remote is > certainly confusing. OTOH something like --force is too general, it > could mean lots of different things. More specific would be > --also-in-remote or --even-in-remote. Or perhaps we want to invent a > completely new name for the option. --allow-in-remote ? But they're all a bit confusing. I think I prefer --even-in-remote overall. Ganesh _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
