On 2005-12-22, Jason Dagit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I wanted to give my wish list things that would make darcs work for > me in pretty much any situation I've needed it. If some of these > things have been fixed or added, I'd love to hear it :) > > 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.
I want better conflict handling, too. There is already way to make it interactive, though, using --external-merge: http://www.darcs.net/manual/node7.html#resolution My two issues with conflict resolution are: 1. It's not clear which part of the conflict belongs to which patch. If they were labeled, it would make it easier to resolved. Example: v v v v [My Patch name] content ******** their content ^ ^ ^ ^ [Their Patch Name] Even symbolic names that just "local" and "remote" would be helpful. 2. It needs to be easier to see the list of files that have conflicts in them. I tried to use "darcs resolve" to do that to do that today, and it give me a scary warning about trashing my work. I just wanted to see the list of conflicting files. As a workaround, I used 'grep -R 'v v v'. See also: http://otherbugs.darcs.net//Ticket/Display.html?id=33 To keep this thread from getting out of control, I'm only going to respond to this single point in this message. Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/ _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
