On Dec 22, 2005, at 4:49 AM, Albert Reiner wrote:
Just a few comments:
[Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wed, 21 Dec 2005
22:59:47 -0800]:
1. Conflicts should be handled more like recording. You know who the
conflict came from, you get a chance to deal with it or ignore it, it
can be interactive, and maybe copies should be made (a copy of each
version and the copy with war paint). As a sub point, I'm not
convinced that when using a "central darcs repo" that all conflicts
can be resolved without working in the central repo.
My feeling is that this interactive scheme only works for simple
situations, e.g., those where you only have to choose between two
alternatives. At any rate, by making the central repo accept a patch
only if it applies cleanly and a test suite runs, it seems clear that
you can set up a situation where nothing is to be done in the central
repo but only in copies of it.
One of the things that happens to me with the current conflict
handling is that I pull changes and then I'm told there are conflicts
and I'm stuck with a messy file that can be hard to clean up. Even
if darcs only told me that there would be conflicts in file foo and
gave me a chance to create a backup I'd be happier. There is
probably also a sequence of commands to restore the old version and
the version that would have been pulled if no conflicts had happened,
but I cannot think of it.
As for the other part of your comment, I've had problems where I had
to do a pull and manually resolve conflicts from the "central repo".
Perhaps I wasn't very careful and I should have done something
differently, but it was unpleasant.
2. Integration with more software. Here is an incomplete list of
software I've wanted darcs plugins for:
But this does not seem to concern darcs proper but should be separate
projects, I think.
Fair enough. I don't mind if it is or is not part of darcs as long
as someone does it :)
6. A way to get automatic "unique" names for patches that you DO NOT
have to think about.
I think you already have them, just that they are not displayed by
default. E.g., in one repo I have 119 patches called '[] [nw]'. But
I can easily get the unique name with --xml output:
Huh, cool. I would have never thought to look at the xml output to
find them. The hashes are not exactly friendly names, but it's a start.
Thanks,
Jason
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
