To make conflicts easier to deal with, one option might be for darcs 
pull and apply to gittishly refuse to work until you record first.

We could introduce a flag to allow the old behaviour of allowing dirty 
working directory.

Needs discussion probably

I'm CC'ing darcs-users about this workflow/user interface issue.

2010/12/4 Eric Kow <bugs@darcs.net>:
>
> New submission from Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>:
>
> To make conflicts easier to deal with, one option might be for darcs
> pull and apply to gittishly refuse to work until you record first.
>
> We could introduce a flag to allow the old behaviour of allowing dirty
> working directory.
>
> Needs discussion probably
>
> ----------
> messages: 13293
> nosy: kowey
> priority: feature
> status: need-action
> title: refuse to pull/apply patches if you have unrecorded changes
> topic: Conflicts, UI
>
> __________________________________
> Darcs bug tracker <bugs@darcs.net>
> <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue2011>
> __________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> darcs-devel mailing list
> darcs-devel@darcs.net
> http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
>

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Guillaume Hoffmann wrote:

> 2010/12/4 Eric Kow <bugs@darcs.net>:
>>
>> New submission from Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net>:
>>
>> To make conflicts easier to deal with, one option might be for darcs
>> pull and apply to gittishly refuse to work until you record first.
>>
>> We could introduce a flag to allow the old behaviour of allowing dirty
>> working directory.
>>
>> Needs discussion probably

Since it's only a problem when there are conflicts, and darcs knows when 
there are, we could restrict the refusal to those situations. Either if 
there are any conflicts, or preferably if there are any conflicts with 
unrecorded changes.

Ganesh