On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:24:03PM +0200, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > So I've been playing around with this a little... and I think I'm > placated. By the way, David, there's still latex code talking about > filenames that end in '-conflict'. I guess that be taken out now. > > I was initially worried about something blowing up or us suddenly > refusing to do something in a rare event. It's not like that at > all: it's just that now, we don't try to be extra-smart about the > rare event. We keep on doing the same thing darcs always does, > which is to treat a conflict as if neither patch has an effect. > This seems much better to me, more consistent, simpler. Less room > to mess up.
Great! And thanks for making me explain myself: it would be bad if you blindly trusted me... > There is also the question of marking conflicts. With hunk patches, > darcs puts those "v v v" markers. With the file conflicts, darcs just > seems to pick one side as the winner. I guess that's more UI than patch > theory stuff. In any case, we seem to win on consistency again (it used > to do this for some cases, and do the -conflict stuff for others) Yeah, that's a bummer. I expect this UI situation may improve just a bit when the new conflicts code is complete, since we'll have/need a framework for interactively prompting for cancellation of conflicting patches. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
