[darcs-users] Small suggestion: lock/unlock and minor idiot-proofing

[Ketil Malde]

James Bruce <bruce at andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> Sorry if this has been brought up before

http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2004-October/003843.html

> 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

I agree.

-kzm
-- 
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants