dan at ag-projects.com
Fri Mar 6 01:06:47 UTC 2009
On Friday 06 March 2009, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Dan Pascu <dan at ag-projects.com> writes:
> > 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.
> +1 for --dont-allow-conflicts as the default in 2.3 -- both for push
> *and* pull.
I think the default value should reflect the most used/expected behavior
for that switch. I believe that while for push is --dont-allow-conflicts
because the number of use cases when one wants to push a conflict in a
remote repo is small, at the same time I believe that --mark-conflicts is
a better default for pull as it is more common for users to want to allow
and mark conflicts after a pull, in order to solve them.
IMO, even though push and pull are symmetric operations, one is more
symmetric than the other, as pull is clearly more usable and better
suited when dealing with conflicts. Thus I think that the default value
of the switch should reflect this asymmetry in usage.
More information about the darcs-users