Jean-Philippe Bernardy wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Kari Hoijarvi <hoija...@seas.wustl.edu> > wrote: > > > >> Suppose I have some optimizations to do, and I add one line to call a >> profiler, happily running test suite and accidentally pushing that change to >> main repository. Obviously, my fellow friends Alice, Bob and Charlie are not >> very happy: They have a release build to make and profiler routines are not >> found by linker. Alice deletes my line, and pushes her changes. So does Bob. >> And Charlie. The line is now added once and deleted three times. Existence >> count = -2 >> > > At this point the external representation will contain a "note" that > the line has been > removed more than once. The code will not compile at all in the "main" > repository. > > I see, I didn't get this when I read your paper. This explains a lot.
Darcs 1 conflicts with identical changes , darcs 2 does not. I think darcs 2 does the intuitive good thing, but I haven't thought what are the consequences when you unrecord such patches, I haven't used darcs2 enough to run to such situation. Time will tell, I use unrecord a lot when prototyping. > Our system strives for simple guarantees, in the hope that intuition > can be quickly gained... > minimizing your medical costs :) > > I didn't get this either. So your approach really separates internal conflicts with user conflicts. It starts to make sense to me now. Thanks and keep posting, Kari _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
