[darcs-users] Small suggestion: lock/unlock and minor idiot-proofing
ketil at ii.uib.no
Tue Nov 23 07:03:54 UTC 2004
James Bruce <bruce at andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> Sorry if this has been brought up before
> since "darcs unrecord" is dangerous for possibly public changes, how
> about adding a "darcs lock" command that makes a lockfile, so that you
> can't pull from that repository (or maybe requiring --force to be
> specified). Then you don't need to worry about
> record/unrecord/rerecord while it is locked. When you are done, just
> "darcs unlock" and people can start pulling from you. It also should
> not allow "darcs push" so newbies like me don't accidentally share
> something. This seems quite easy to implement by simply creating a
> _darcs/lock file, and having pulls etc check for that file first.
"lock" is a bit non-descriptive. How about "private"?
I would think it would be natural to allow push and send, as you need
some way out of the repo -- perhaps the lock file could contain
information about the last (or set of) distributed patch(es), and
disallow unrecord et al. for anyting already distributed?
>> Rule number one of working with darcs: never do anything interesting
>> when "darcs what" doesn't say ``no changes''.
> Why not just have those commands say "you have local changes, commit
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
More information about the darcs-users