On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 15:23:31 +0200, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Martin Gagnon <eme...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for the warning message...
...Moreover, is it necessary to prompt user to continue or not if a
pull is
needed? Or we rely on the undo command if the user want to pull before
merge ?
i agree it's a mildly annoying thing to have happen (and an 'undo' fixes
it, doesn't it?), but i'd find any pulling done by merge to be quite
surprising. i want to be guaranteed that if i run "fossil merge X" two
times in a row, without an intervening manual pull or commit, the results
are identical, and auto-pull removes that guaranty.
If we need it, let's please make it an option. i sympathize with options
adding complexity, but we've got lots of precedence for them in fossil.
I really would think this to be mostly a non-issue (it seemingly never
came up
before drh now was contemplating it himself?). and while another option is
OK
(as long as it is OFF by default!) I don't believe it would constitute an
improvement.
it would add one more to the already not-so-few options and the
"signal-to-noise ratio"
(i.e. the ratio of really vital/relevant/helpful options to the
'maybe-sometimes-nice-to-have-too' options
would be decreased in my view, making `fossil settings' output more
verbose etc.
so I still would argue for leaving this area as it is right now. it really
is not
_that_ much of a hassle to actually first pull (or update, if autosync is
ON) before
doing the merge and it somehow seems wrong that `merge' would develop some
sort of
"artificial intelligence" instead of just operating on the given state of
the (local) repository.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
