On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 14:38:35 +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote: > Ben Franksen <[email protected]> writes: > > > 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>
> Patches welcome! :-) So in the original context for this thread, I mentioned our reasons for not working on this just yet (likely easier to start from camp), and that in the meantime somebody should start a UI discussion on how improved marking should work. Thanks, for starting this, Ben! And now Jason has highlighted some other issues to consider: - conflicts between N patches - nested conflicts - non-hunk conflicts (e.g. rename) To that I might add - length of patch descriptions? - do patch hashes have a role in this? Maybe something like this, instead, generalising to N patches v v v v v v <patch description of patch1> conflicting stuff from patch1 * * * * * * <patch description of patch2> conflicting stuff from patch2 * * * * * * <patch description of patch3> conflicting stuff from patch3 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <patch1 to patch3> Where the patch descriptions are the first 30 chars (or maybe the first 30 chars excluding vowels :-P). Not sure how the "patch1 to patch3" summary would work, though. Thoughts? -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
