We should minimise our use of this warning.  Right now, it seems to 
trigger systematically. What we really want is to only display it when 
the target token already exists in the file.

Also, "Don't be surprised!" sounds a little awkward, hard to explain 
why.

Don't be surprised!
I've changed all instances of 'greGreedy' to 'gre_greedy' first
so that darcs replace can token-replace them back into 'greGreedy' 
again.

In fact, we could push this a bit:

If --force is used:
 - and there are no hunk changes needed, say so ("Oh good! No need to 
use --force here, proceeding as normal". NB: I'm rather wordy, you may 
want something terser than that)
 - if there are changes needed, say something like the above

Hi Alexander! Would you be interested in working on this? It's a 
followup from your work on patch662 (for which, thanks!), just slightly 
backing things off.  I had a quick look at the code, and it seems that 
the cause is a unhelpfully named helper function that implies it 
triggers during force, but actually seems to fire all the time :-)

PS. Nice working with you at CamHac. We may be planning one for March or 
April (or I might also be going to the Utrecht one)

Hi Eric,

On 1/13/2012 9:42 AM, Eric Kow wrote:
> Eric Kow<kowey@darcs.net>  added the comment:
>
> Hi Alexander! Would you be interested in working on this?
yes, I will have a look. Hopefully I can follow up during the weekend.
> It's a
> followup from your work on patch662 (for which, thanks!), just slightly
> backing things off.  I had a quick look at the code, and it seems that
> the cause is a unhelpfully named helper function that implies it
> triggers during force, but actually seems to fire all the time :-)
>
> PS. Nice working with you at CamHac.
I really enjoyed it. Thank you so much for mentoring me!
> We may be planning one for March or
> April
I might be interested.
> (or I might also be going to the Utrecht one)
>
> ----------
> nosy: +anjemz
>
> __________________________________
> Darcs bug tracker<bugs@darcs.net>
> <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue2125>
> __________________________________

You say "Don't be suprised" sounds awkward. Your initial suggestion
was "Don't worry", if I'm not mistaken. Would you prefer that?

Do you really want to emit a notice if --force was invoked without need?
I'm not sure people would actually care if they are using --force in the
first place. I may be wrong though.

The following patch sent by Owen Stephens <darcs@owenstephens.co.uk> updated issue issue2125 with
status=has-patch

* Resolve issue2125: only warn about forcing replaces, when a force is required. 
Ignore-this: 216143d7fbd7cf07e958c98999b0db9c

The following patch sent by Owen Stephens <darcs@owenstephens.co.uk> updated issue issue2125 with
status=has-patch

* Follow up to resolve issue2125, with style changes 
Ignore-this: d5bb3044d036e503d8d2660a9608fe92

The following patch sent by Owen Stephens <darcs@owenstephens.co.uk> updated issue issue2125 with
status=resolved;resolvedin=2.8.0 HEAD

* Follow up to resolve issue2125, with style changes 
Ignore-this: d5bb3044d036e503d8d2660a9608fe92