On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 02:35:37AM +0100, Jamie Webb wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:08:56AM +0000, Terrence Brannon wrote: > > Jamie Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 10:07:26AM +0000, Terrence Brannon wrote: > > >> > > >> I dont understand why dacs would say it is applying the latest patches > > >> but when you look at a file, its contents are only the initial add, > > >> not all the patches to the file as well. The transcript follows. When > > >> I cat the file, note how its contents are the initially added > > >> contents, not the latest version of the file. > > > > > > The repo contains unresolved conflicts. Do a 'darcs resolve' to mark > > > them. > > > > server or client-side? should there have been some warning when doing > > the pull advising what you said? ... > No, Darcs wouldn't have warned you about this and it probably should > have. I'll submit a bug report once I've checked the latest version. > In its defence, Darcs did attempt to prevent this situation by > preventing you from pushing a conflict to the server in the first > place, but you found a 'workaround'...
With a 'pull' we would have announced the conflict. The trouble is that with a get, checking for conflicts could be very expensive (depending how far back in the history we went--in theory we'd have to go all the way back to the second patch, which would cost us O(N^2) or worse in the total number of patches (depending how unlucky we are). The conflict should have been announced when it was created, and should have been marked, unless the --allow-conflicts flag was used. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
