Reviving an old discussion (as I am reading up on darcs-users)... Eric Kow wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:19:19 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: >> Yes, exactly. We want to work on branches and merge with the HEAD >> regularly. Darcs doesn't support this well because: > >> - conflicts are painful to resolve due to >> (a) unhelpful conflict markers > > The current thinking is that the changes which Ian's darcs-3 > modifications to patch theory require will make this a lot easier to > implement. So it's not so much the difficulty that's causing us to > hold off on this as it is the idea that we would be working much more > efficiently if we did it in the darcs-3-core-then-conflict-marking > order. > > In the meantime, I think it it would be useful if somebody could lead a > discussion on how good darcs-style conflict marking should work on a UI > level.
I often wondered why darcs didn't just say v v v v v v <patch description of patch1> conflicting stuff from patch1 * * * * * * conflicting stuff from patch2 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <patch description of patch1> instead of v v v v v v conflicting stuff from patch1 * * * * * * conflicting stuff from patch2 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Cheers Ben _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
