Ian Lynagh wrote: > It sounds like you are conflating "conflict" and "dependency". > Two patches in parallel may conflict with each other. With two patches > in series, the later one may depend on the earlier one.
I think I'll interject, here; I think they are very similar. I've occasionally been bothered by the same thing that Jean-Philippe is talking about. Sometimes, I (and my colleagues) want to pull/unpull patches that have dependencies. We'd thought that the nicest and perhaps simplest way would be to handle the dependencies in the same manner in which one might handle conflicts. Essentially, both a conflict and a dependency are commutations/merges/unmerges than cannot be easily fulfilled (I'm sure there's a better description). When I have a file with conflicts, I'm given a file with patch A applied and a file with patch B applied and I'm expected to provide a file with both applied. When I have dependencies, I'd like to be given a file with patch A applied and a file with both applied and be expected to provide a file with only B applied. In each case, I'm providing a manual completion of the (A, B, A+B) set. When there are no conflicts/dependencies, Darcs has no trouble providing any of them. (When I say patch A, I mean "A or a moral equivalent", in general) Regards, Grant Husbands. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
