Eric Y. Kow writes: > Also: if you fix some of the conflicts, without recording a patch, and > then do mark-conflicts, darcs will probably behave as if you (in > addition to the conflicts it is trying to mark) have some extra > conflicts with the working directory.
The message from mark-conflicts indicates that you may lose your work. > It's really a question of pay-off and priorities. As good as it would > be to fix this, we may be better off focusing on darcs's other problems > instead. The easiest way to "fix" it is to have Darcs consider that identical patches to the same "place" don't conflict, which Darcs 2 already does. Thus, the adds don't conflict, but then the hunks which insert contents do, and you get the familiar conflict markup. => Fix Darcs 2 bugs, get it to where David pronounces it stable, and migrate. Regarding better UI for conflicts, that would be interesting, but I don't have a good idea about how to do it (either at the UI level or implementation level). David has a bunch of old posts and/or sections in the Patch Theory appendix where he describes unravelling mergers. A UI for introspecting that process might be fun to watch, and occasionally educational. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
