Hello, "Eric Kow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This reminds me of an idea that David was working on in the very early > phases of darcs2 (and Jason's Summer of Code project). (for reference, Eric sent me this link privately a little later: http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2006-July/004510.html)
The big difference probably is (if I understand everything correctly), that the above "dead patches" work was set in the context of theory of patches and the "resolutions" were required to have "nice" commutation properties (and I believe those depended on commutation properties of patch inverses, which turned out to be problematic). So what I had in mind is probably related to the above dead patches spec, but the intention was to "liberate" the resolutions from the rather stringent requirements of "being a patch" (inside patch theory). [A rather bold intent could be to build some sort of "theory of conflicts" working in terms of patch sets, that would however live somewhat above and a little to the left (or to the right?) of theory of patches.] Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
