On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 11:36:04AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
> I'm ccing darcs-users on this, since it seems like others might be
> interested in listening on our discussion of conflictors...
[You want to be CCed on mailing list posts these days, right?
Your Mail-Followup-To header is set to make that not happen.]
> On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 11:39:58PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 07:24:30AM -0700, David Roundy wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 02:32:08PM +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If we have the repo
> > > > PS C
> > > > where
> > > > C = Conflictor QS ES M
> > > > (I'm ignoring contexts here) then
> > > >
> > > > * This is the patch M
> > > > * Its effect is ES^
> > > >
> > > > * E \in ES <=> E \in PS
> > > > E is not conflicted in PS
> > > > M conflict*s with E
> > > > * Q \in QS <=> Q \in PS
> > > > Q is conflicted in PS
> > > > Either
> > > > M conflict*s with Q
> > > > or
> > > > There is a P \in PS such that
> > > > P conflict*s with M
> > > > and
> > > > P conflict*s with Q
(this is actually wrong - it should actually be the transitive closure
of conflicts*s)
> > > Yes, that sounds right
> >
> > I could be having a dopey moment, but is there a reason that we need to
> > keep all of the last class of patches in the conflictor? i.e. those that
> > we transitively conflict with?
>
> The problem is that if you remove the secondary conflicts, it becomes very
> hard to write the commute,
Isn't the commute code exactly the same?
Another thing:
Can you please give me an example of when it is necessary to have a
non-empty MS in
Conflictor QS ES (Ms:M)
? i.e. when do we need a context for the "us" patch? As far as I can
think, if we can't commute past Ms:M we always have the commute fail
rather than adding to Ms.
Thanks
Ian
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
