[darcs-users] darcs patch: Resolve issue1588: make --dont-allow-conflicts filter ...

Ganesh Sittampalam ganesh at earth.li
Fri Oct 2 04:38:46 UTC 2009

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, 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 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
> takes precedence.

In this particular case, the natural code behaviour will be that 
--skip-conflicts is "stronger" than --dont-allow-conflicts or 
--mark-conflicts, in that it will cause the list of patches to be filtered 
appropriately before the other options are even considered, which in turn 
would mean that the other options had no effect.

I could of course make it do something different with more effort. Not 
sure if this is warranted.


More information about the darcs-users mailing list