darcs

Issue 1429 wish: darcs push --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts

Title wish: darcs push --allow-conflicts and --mark-conflicts
Priority feature Status given-up
Milestone Resolved in
Superseder Nosy List darcs-devel, dmitry.kurochkin, jaredj, kowey
Assigned To
Topics ProbablyEasy

Created on 2009-04-09.13:35:45 by kowey, last changed 2017-07-31.01:15:24 by gh.

Messages
msg7642 (view) Author: kowey Date: 2009-04-09.13:35:40
As seen on
http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2009-March/018053.html
msg10962 (view) Author: bfr Date: 2010-05-05.22:02:30
Quick summary of the email thread:

No one wants to change the default no-conflicts for push, some even 
argue for making it the default for pull (they may have a point, but 
this is another issue). All participants except one argue for adding 
the flags as (non-default) options to push. Rationale: (1) if you 
explicitly say you want to allow conflicts you must know what you are 
doing; (2) there are certain work flows where going to the other repo 
and pulling from there is inconvenient or even difficult.
msg10965 (view) Author: bfr Date: 2010-05-05.22:12:14
When darcs refuses to push because it would lead to conflicts, darcs 
suggests the --mark-conflicts option. Although the hint is for 'apply' 
command, it is nevertheless confusing. I was certainly surprised by 
the interaction listed below, even though I have been routinely using 
darcs for years. One tends to pick out "use the --mark-conflicts 
or --allow-conflicts options" from the text and ignore the details. We 
are only humans after all...

ben@sarun[1]: .../seq/2-0-98 > darcs push ../work 
The remote repository has 4 patches to pull.
Thu Mar  4 10:13:16 CET 2010  benjamin.franksen@bessy.de
  tagged R2-0-12
Shall I push this patch? (1/15)  [ynWvplxdaqjk], or ? for help: a

darcs failed:  Refusing to apply patches leading to conflicts.
If you would rather apply the patch and mark the conflicts,
use the --mark-conflicts or --allow-conflicts options to apply
These can set as defaults by adding
 apply mark-conflicts
to _darcs/prefs/defaults in the target repo. 
Backing up ./configure/RELEASE(-darcs-backup0)
There are conflicts in the following files:
./configure/RELEASE
Apply failed!
ben@sarun[1]: .../seq/2-0-98 > darcs push ../work --mark-conflicts

darcs failed:  unrecognized option `--mark-conflicts'

ben@sarun[1]: .../seq/2-0-98 > darcs push ../work --allow-conflicts

darcs failed:  unrecognized option `--allow-conflicts'
msg17080 (view) Author: god Date: 2013-11-10.17:30:33
rather natural name would be --force which ensures that no matter what
the local version will be pushed to remote repo
msg17081 (view) Author: stephen Date: 2013-11-11.02:05:45
god writes:
 > 
 > god <god12@niksula.hut.fi> added the comment:
 > 
 > rather natural name would be --force which ensures that no matter what
 > the local version will be pushed to remote repo

Except that AFAIK you can't ensure that a *version* is pushed in
Darcs, because Darcs is not DAG-based.  You can only ensure that the
local set of patches is a subset of the remote, but of course then you
may have a conflict which needs to be resolved by hand AFAIK -- you
can't just check out the desired version.
History
Date User Action Args
2009-04-09 13:35:45koweycreate
2009-04-09 13:38:50koweysetstatus: unread -> needs-reproduction
nosy: kowey, simon, thorkilnaur, jaredj, dmitry.kurochkin
2009-08-10 17:46:08koweysetstatus: needs-reproduction -> needs-implementation
nosy: kowey, simon, thorkilnaur, jaredj, dmitry.kurochkin
2009-08-25 17:43:20adminsetnosy: + darcs-devel, - simon
2009-08-27 14:22:11adminsetnosy: kowey, darcs-devel, thorkilnaur, jaredj, dmitry.kurochkin
2010-03-23 17:51:19koweysetnosy: - thorkilnaur
2010-05-05 22:02:31bfrsetnosy: + bfr
messages: + msg10962
2010-05-05 22:12:15bfrsetmessages: + msg10965
2013-11-10 17:30:34godsetmessages: + msg17080
2013-11-11 02:05:46stephensetmessages: + msg17081
2017-07-31 01:15:24ghsetstatus: needs-implementation -> given-up
nosy: - bfr