On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:45 PM, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31:48PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 17:01:49 -0400, David Roundy wrote: > > > Here's a bug fix for issue1043, which was a pretty scary bug in the > > > conflict-handling code for the darcs-2 formalism. I had failed to > > > take into account a possible scenario (which I wrongly thought was > > > impossible). I've fixed that by switching to using in > > > mergeAfterConflicting a variant of commute which doesn't allow > > > conflicting patches to commute, which seems to solve the problem. > > > > So, I haven't looked at this yet. > > Do you reckon it's safe to put it in the release? > > I believe it should be. Or rather, the code without this fix is > definitely not safe to put into the release, so I think we're better > off with the fix than without it. It definitely fixes this particular > problem (and yes, I was able to understand the problem enough to be > confident of that). I'm concerned that there might be similar bugs > elsewhere in the code, but don't have the time for a full audit. Thanks for putting in a big comment in front of mergeAfterConflicting. I think that is quite nice. This sounds like a tricky bug. Maybe we can convince Florent to apply this and retry his test case to see if those other not-audited places trigger. Thanks David! Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
