[darcs-users] darcs patch: Resolve issue1588: make--dont-allow-conflicts filter ...
dan at ag-projects.com
Mon Oct 5 17:37:13 UTC 2009
On 5 Oct 2009, at 16:28, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
> It's not an issue of the code, but of the user interface (I know I
> started out this discussion by explaining what the code would do by
> default, but that's actually irrelevant since it's quite easy for me
> implement either option.)
> With just --don't-allow-conflicts, conflicting patches are presented
> during interactive selection, but selecting one causes a later
> With just --skip-conflicts, conflicting patches are not presented
> interactive selection.
> So if we say that they are mutually exclusive options, then
> --skip-conflicts --don't-allow-conflicts will present conflicting
> patches, because --skip-conflicts is completely suppressed.
If they are mutually exclusive, I assume that the program will decide
what option to use before it starts to do anything. So if I have skip-
conflicts in the defaults file but I give --dont-allow-conflicts on
the command line, then indeed I expect that skip-conflicts (specified
in the defaults) is completely suppressed and ignored.
The way you present things, it sounds like darcs starts to process
skip-conflicts and filter out the patches before it sees --dont-allow-
conflicts and later when it sees the second option it enters in a
conflicting state because the second option was also processed and
produced a conflicting set of patches. At least this is what I
understood from your description. I was under the assumption that
darcs finds out what options it has to use before it starts to process
anything, so it will never be in a position to see a conflicting
request, because it never sees both options active during any given
processing. For me mutually exclusive means that when I encounter the
second option, I discard and forget about the first one and after I
got all options by parsing the defaults files and command line, only
then I start to do the processing according to those options.
I feel like I'm missing something here.
More information about the darcs-users