On 20/11/2007, at 2:55 AM, David Roundy wrote: >> it sounds like you've found one. I tried searching the archives, >> and I found a lot of discussion, but it was hard to find what the >> final solution was (there seemed to be a bunch of options and it >> isn't >> clear which one was chosen and what its final form was).
> > Actually, things have been in flux over the last couple of weeks. The > problem is certainly not solved yet, but we've got a good idea that it > *can* be solved, and hints as to how we can do that. > > Most recently, I've decided to give up (for now, at least) on the > idea of > treating inverses nicely in the case of a conflict, as that was > generating > way too many special cases. In fact, it's starting to look like the > implementable semantics are shockingly similar to those that darcs > already > (incompletely and inefficiently) implements. I'd rather not explain > in > detail just yet, as I've got a limited amount of time, and alas > another bit > of the (new) code requires a rewrite, as I now understand... :( > > So progress is being made, and I think I've got a working model, but > since > it's less than two weeks old (but based on the continuous work of a > few > months), I think it's better to get it actually coded up and working > (on > test cases) before explaining it (as that often reveals problems with > ideas). Great. Thanks for the update. Good luck figuring it all out - I've been playing with some patch theory myself recently. I'll probably post to revctrl soon so you'll see that stuff. Be well, Will :-} _______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
