On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 09:26:46AM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> Excerpts from Tommy Pettersson's message of Wed Jan 16 21:18:15 +0100 2008:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:36:30PM +0000, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > > Wed Jan 16 20:34:26 CET 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > * Add --{allow,dont-allow,mark}-conflicts to darcs pull.
> > >
> > > This patch also merge the --external option to pull_conflicts_options
> > > like with apply.
> >
> > Hmmm... I don't think merging --external-merger to the
> > multi-choice option is a good idea. A common case is to have
> > 'ALL external-merger my_favorite_merger" in the .darcs/defaults
> > file, and expect 'darcs apply --mark-conflicts' to use
> > my_favorite_merger.
>
> So, does makes sense to extract the external-merger option from the
> multi-choice option for both pull and apply?
Absolutely! In fact, I thought this was the case for Apply,
until I just looked at the code and saw it treats
--external-merge (without 'r' at the end) as a multi-choice of
the other conflict options. Maybe I was confusing it with the
--diff-command option, which is how --external-merger (with 'r'
at the end) should work, imho.
But to have Pull equal Apply in semantics of external-merge
(whatever they are), as is now done with your patch, is of
course the right thing.
--
Tommy Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
darcs-devel@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
