[darcs-users] darcs patch: Resolve issue1588: make --dont-allow-conflicts filter ...
dan at ag-projects.com
Fri Oct 2 03:35:26 UTC 2009
On 1 Oct 2009, at 16:21, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> 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
> be able to supersede that behaviour by supplying --skip-conflicts on
> command line. I guess these simply become a quaternary choice (along
> with --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts), and the last one
> takes precedence.
I think that should be fairly easy to handle. The standard way of
handling options is to consider the hardcoded internal defaults, the
global config file, the local config file and the command line
options, in this order, the later sources overwriting the settings
from the former ones.
More information about the darcs-users