Claus suggests a feature for whenever we capture a failure to apply a patch to
the working directory via tolerant IO.  Basically, we should note what happened
and keep warning the user about it (that is, on every darcs invocation) until
s/he takes some action to suppress the warning.  For example, it could tell the
user to delete the file _darcs/warnings or something.

From Claus Reinke:

> Having skimmed over the ticket relating to "moving on", that
> seems to have been a shortcut/workaround, rather than a feature
> (#434, where the suggested fix was to make darcs actions atomic:
> either they succeed or not, but nothing in between).

> In particular, darcs should be able to recognize that it has taken
> that shortcut, which means recording a flag "pristine and working
> out of sync because <warnings here>", and repeating the warnings
> for every darcs command until the user addresses the issues and
> resets the flag. Currently, darcs doesn't distinguish between its
> own messing up and the user editing working, which isn't good,
> especially if there are real unrecorded user changes in working.

I think it would be actually much better to write the failed hunks to
_darcs/patches/failed (akin to pending) and warn the user. darcs repair --failed-
do that after fixing the permission/whatever problem happened).

Thoughts?

Sounds like a great idea, saving the patch itself instead of just a warning.  I
think Jason has had the same idea (great minds, etc)...

It might take a little work percolating this stuff up from the IO level (would
we do away with tolerant IO, for example?).  

Not very urgent, but something nice to have.