On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 10:37:22PM +0100, Eric Y. Kow wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 06:43:31 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > > mkdir repo1; cd repo1; darcs init; cd .. > > > darcs get repo1 repo2 > > > cd repo1; echo "one" > file; darcs add file; darcs record -a -m > > 'one'; cd .. > > > cd repo2; echo "two" > file; darcs add file; darcs record -a -m 'two' > > > darcs pull -a > > > > > Where do I find a copy of the file containing "one", and/or information > > > about what change conflicted there, so I can decide whether to keep my > > > version of "file," use the pulled version of "file," or do some merge of > > > the two? > > > > You don't. This is a serious bug in Darcs with the backward- > > compatible repo formats (--old-inventory-format and --hashed). (It's > > new to me, and I don't know if it's an old but unknown bug or a > > regression.) > > I may be mistaken when I say this, but I reckon this sort of thing is a > UI issue and not a patch-theory one (if this is of any consolation). > > Do you think it would be feasible for conflicting adds to be marked up > sensibly? I.e. in the working directory, one of the adds happens (seems > easy), and both hunks get thrown in on top (maybe not so easy?) > > Or maybe you'd prefer just leaving it as it is since the darcs-2 format > fixes it?
This does indeed sound like a UI bug. As you say, it doesn't affect darcs-2 semantics repositories, and I'm not greatly worried about it, as it's been present as long as darcs has existed, and somehow folks have managed to muddle by. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
