The preferred route is to do exactly what the CVS/SVN people do: pull the conflict into your local repo, resolve it there, and then push the resolution up to the master along with your original patch. That way no-one else ever sees the conflict.
Thank you for the detailed explanation Jamie. I reverted and unpulled the patch from the master repo and then followed the above. Worked great.
I'm a converting CVS and SVN user so it was like a "DUH" when I read your post. Odd that I didn't think about this before. "Dummy mode on" as the BOFH used to say.
I have a general usage question on patch names for the conflict resolution. Normally I name my patches by what they do so there is very little opportunity for namespace collision on patch names. When fixing up conflicts however I don't really have that good a description for the patch. And I foresee a lot of "sync_with_master" patch names. I know that darcs will let you have duplicate patch names just fine but actually doing that just seems wrong to me.
What do you guys normally do for a patch name for your conflict fixup patches?
If the pull flags up conflicts, you then have the choice of creating a new patch to remedy them, or amend-recording your existing patch (/only/ since you haven't yet pushed it anywhere).
Would one way be preferred over the other? I guess if I did amend-record then I would not have to worry about my above naming hangups.
-- Richard A. Smith Bitworks, Inc _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
