Florent Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Commands could add more specialized answers to that question: for >>> example, send could propose to edit the mail, or cc: someone, and so on. >>> >>> Of course the problem is that this would change darcs' interactive ui >>> and break any scripts that interact with it (in particular our shell >>> tests). We could also add a --cautious/--reckless flag pair, but i'm not >>> too keen on adding many flags, especially when --reckless would probably >>> not be that useful out of existing scripts (you save one 'y', if it >>> counts for you, you're not using the interactive ui, are you?). What do >>> you think? Change the ui, add a flag, do nothing, something else? >> >> Perhaps what's really desired is a --dry-run switch for all commands, >> which prints a high-level description of the action that WOULD be taken, >> but doesn't actually take it. > > The problem with --dry-run is that you have to know that you are going > to need it before you run the command, which is not always the case > for mere mortals.
A good point; I withdrawn the --dry-run suggestion. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
