Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 18:36:21 +0100: > I haven't yet seen any good suggestion for an alternative approach. > > Dry run implies carrying out every step made during an update expect > making modifications to the working copy. The suggestion to put dry-run > into a separate editor is even worse because it duplicates at lot more > conditionals (for update logic) in a new place than this patch is adding > to existing places. > > If there is a cleaner way to do it, fine. Maybe Arwin would like to learn > about this better approach and try to implement it, for update and for merge. > But is there?
I'd have expected this discussion to take place prior to anyone writing a patch.
