[darcs-users] Help understanding the push with conflicts message

[Eric Kow]

On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 19:49:17 +0100, Ashley Moran wrote:
> How about making `darcs push --mark-conflicts` and `darcs push --allow- 
> conflicts` only work on local repositories?  That way the workflow would 
> be:

Interesting suggestion, but I think we're best off keeping things as
simple as possible here.  Besides, "remote" and "local" are a bit
arbitrary to me.  What if you're dealing with a network share (mounted
as /foo), for example?

> WDYT?
>
> As a second thought, this makes me also wonder if there'd be benefit in 
> being able to:

> % darcs push --last-remote

I'm not particularly keen on adding new switches to darcs unless there
is a compelling reason.  So if we can find an acceptable workflow that
doesn't need one, that's better.  New switches are nice when they cover
a lot of different ground at once on the other hand (thus obviating
any future requests for new switches...)

-- 
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090410/5ef6955f/attachment.pgp>