On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:29:05AM -0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >From Nathaniel Smith's example: ... > I am satisfied with the latter behavior, but after further discussion on IRC > with Aaron Bentley, I now believe that the correct answer would be "d".
I agree that this would be ideal. > I can even see a glimmer of how this policy can be implemented in terms of > darcs patch theory... Right now I just want to make darcs handle conflicts correctly (meaning without causing either repository corruption or fail in get_extra). Then there'll come the question of what a conflict, and how to determine a default resolution. But alas, the world isn't restricted to easy examples like the one you give... :) > Perhaps this discussion should be moved to another list? You'd be welcome on the darcs-conflicts list, but I'll warn you that we aren't likely to get to implementing conflict resolutions or marking for a while yet. By the way, the conflictor-based patch theory is much simpler and more elegant than the old merger theory (which is what's currently in use). -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
