[darcs-users] darcs patch: Resolve issue1588: make --dont-allow-conflicts filter ...
Trent W. Buck
trentbuck at gmail.com
Thu Oct 1 13:21:22 UTC 2009
Dan Pascu <dan at ag-projects.com> writes:
> I think I find having a new option (--skip-conflicts) to be much
> cleaner (and clearer) as I give an exact indication of what I want: I
> accept to take just the non-conflicting patches. At the same time the
> --dont-allow-conflicts option has already established a well defined
> meaning among users which does not suggest a partial operation.
> Changing its meaning will not only make its behavior surprising to
> older users, but the non-atomicity of the new behavior can make it
> troublesome especially for push, since the user didn't indicate that
> it's OK to have a non-atomic pull/push and he may only find it
> afterwards that he brought the code in the repository in a non-
> functional state.
What happens if both are specified? Currently I make
dont-allow-conflicts the default in my .darcs/defaults, but I'd like to
be able to supersede that behaviour by supplying --skip-conflicts on the
command line. I guess these simply become a quaternary choice (along
with --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts), and the last one supplied
More information about the darcs-users