On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 10:52:44AM +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > Resolutions are starting to look more and more like inverse patches to me. > Why can't they just be inverse patches, and not kill off the resolved > patch? Given that we want resolutions to commute like AA^ (etc), why > not just make AA^ commute how we want and use that directly?
Mostly because we already tried that and failed. That's the idea behind conflictors. The new idea is that commutation won't determine merging, and that merges (in the case of conflicts) reversed by commutation. We've talked (Arjan and I) about the possibility of automatically converting AA^ into a resolution patch r(A), and it seems like it'll work. If we do that, then indeed you'll be able to think of resolutions as inverses, but we aren't trying to make AA^ commute at all in conflicting cases. I'm not certain that we will be able to allow conversion of AA^ into r(A), but if we aren't able to do that (e.g. if we can't always recognize what's happening, and may sometimes not be able to make AA^ behave like r(A)), I still think the resolutions approach should work. David _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
