On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 01:28:05PM +0100, Jamie Webb wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 06:34:03AM -0400, David Roundy wrote: > > 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). > > Seems like that could be avoided with a simple flag in the inventory > marking patches as containing unresolved conflicts. Darcs must've been > aware of the conflict when it first appeared.
Darcs currently doesn't discover (although it could... it'd just be more code) which patch has a conflict, it just knows that there are conflicts (and in which files). We'd also have to add a check to see when conflicts are resolved when we pull, apply or record. And when patches are unrecorded, unpulled or amend-recorded, we'd have to check whether any conflicts had been unresolved. I definitely plan on reworking the conflict marking code when the new conflictors code is ready. For now, conflict handling is sort of on hold (or you could say in progress). -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
