[darcs-users] --mark-conflicts

Dan Pascu dan at ag-projects.com
Thu Mar 5 19:58:56 UTC 2009

On Wednesday 04 March 2009, Eric Kow wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 18:47:22 +1100, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> > Yes, it can be worked around.  But sometimes this is terribly
> > inconvenient and "I know better than you, Darcs".  Particularly when
> > I both ends are private repos to which only I have access -- I can go
> > into details regarding use cases in a follow-up post if you like.
> I'd be curious to learn more about this, i.e. where it would be
> inconvenient to darcs pull and resolve conflicts locally instead
> of pushing to the other end.
> I won't oppose the move if there is a general clamour for push
> --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts (which would be a ProbablyEasy
> bug to fix along with the darcs format flag propagation), but my
> personal vote is for the status quo (plus maybe an FAQ update)

I also think that the status quo is clearer and safer. In a general use 
pattern, it's harder to check and resolve conflicts in a remote 
repository, compared to a local repository. Also considering that a 
repository which is pushes to, is generally used as a central repository 
for synchronizing between developers and the expectancy is that the 
repository is consistent and without conflicts.

I do not see a problem with having the allow/mark options to push as well, 
for people who know better and really need this, but I think push should 
keep --dont-allow-conflicts as the default. Not only it is safer, but 
also people are used to this behavior. My current expectancy of push is 
to fail if there is a conflict and not change the remote repo. If that 
default behavior would change, I could easily miss that I pushed a 
conflict to a remote repo and brought it to an inconsistent state.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list