I must admit, this formulation looked initially attractive, but having read up
the dicsussion on IRC and the rest of this thread I now have some misgivings.
The problem (that I don't think was mentioned on the list, but was described by
Igloo on IRC) is that sometimes two resolutions that should conflict don't. eg.
if A & B conflict, one developer resolves the conflict by killing A, the other
by killing B, then the merge of the two repos kills both A & B.
To me, this illustrates a fundamental problem with the approach, and there's an
easy way to describe why. The resolution of a conflict is dependent on the
conflicting changes: that is, it depends on both lines of development, not just
the one beikng killed. A resolution should say "I want to resolve these
conflicting lines of development in the following way". A resolution that just
says "I want to kill these patches" doesn't express enough context, which leads
to the problem above.
So to me, this idea seems just a little *too* simple. But maybe there's an
elboration that isn't too complicated?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
