On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:24:50PM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, David Roundy wrote: > >On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 08:53:57PM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > >>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, David Roundy wrote: > >>>This would give us "for free" the feature that patches that are > >>>identical except in name do not conflict. > >> > >>I've said this before, but please don't allow this to happen without human > >>confirmation that it should. I know that in 99% of cases it's what's > >>wanted, but in the other 1% or 0.1% it's not, and it's much harder to sort > >>out the mess when it's happened unwantedly than vice versa. > > > >With the implementation I've got in mind, we could easily add a > >warning, perhaps even something analogous to the "!" in darcs changes > >-s when this happens. It shouldn't in any case be hard to query the > >repository for primitive patches with multiple names. > > This is no use unless we can then do something to force the conflict in > all repositories, though.
But it's not a conflict, that's the point. We can't have it both ways. Either identical primitive patches conflict, or they don't. Neither choice is optimal in all cases, but we have to make a choice. I think since either is reasonable, we can go with what's convenient, and with this approach, I think we're much better off in terms of the danger of escalating conflict wars (i.e. conflict resolutions that conflict), which can be a real problem when you've got N developers all pulling from one another. -- David Roundy _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
