On Feb 22, 2006, at 7:21 AM, Jamie Webb wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 02:28:07PM +0100, Matthias Fischmann wrote:
I am trying to figure out a locking procedure for a repo containing
mostly 5 tex files and shared by 5 people. I couldn't find any
equivalent to 'svn lock'
No. Locking is completely counter to the way darcs works.
but relying on auto-conflict-resolution also
seems a bad idea if the repository constists mainly of three to five
latex files.
Why?
Conflicts are confusing, annoying and poorly implemented currently in
darcs. I've heard that an external merge tool makes life better but
I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.
For examples of the types of problems people have had with conflicts
there are threads which have been resolved and many others which are
sort of dangling still:
http://search.gmane.org/search.php?group=gmane.comp.version-
control.darcs.user&query=conflicts
I had a co-author that said he'll never use darcs again because
conflicts are poorly implemented.
For me the most annoying part is that it merges the conflicting
changes into one file without telling me the source of the changes
and the conflict markers are, IMO, hard to find within the file. I
often resort to trying to compile the code to find the makers. Soon
I learned that conflicts are a pain and it was worth the effort to
avoid them at all costs.
For more emphasis on my dislike of conflicts you can see it is the
first item on my darcs wish list :)
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.darcs.user/9093
Well, that's my $0.02 on why it's a bad idea, YMMV and all that.
Jason
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
