On 02/02/2010 13:50, Sittampalam, Ganesh wrote:
Another problem with conflict marking is that sometimes a simple 2-way
conflict can leave you with 3 or more conflicting options. By "2-way" I
mean merging two different linear branches without conflicts. It's just
silly that this happens.
That does sound strange, any idea why it happens?
I've got some local work that mostly fixes this that I hope to submit
soon, but it turns out to be surprisingly difficult to do a perfect job
given our current conflict representation. However, that work does give
me some ideas as to how we might improve on the points you mention above
without a patch format change. I'll give it some more thought.
Great, glad to hear there's a chance of some progress on this.
2. Rebase.
I promise I haven't forgotten about this :-) I mentioned to you in
December (in person) that I had the basic infrastructure working, and
I've gradually been improving on that, mostly by using it myself and
finding bad bits of behaviour. The improved conflict marking above is
one example of a problem I found myself needing to fix to make rebase
usable, as it seems more prone to generating such nasty conflict marks.
There's still a fair bit to do, and judging by the hunk editing
discussion, getting the UI design right will also take quite a while.
But I am targeting 2.5 for it, and hopefully the sprint in late March
will give us (the Darcs team) an opportunity to take a good look at the
UI design in person as well as to review the overall design of the
feature.
Excellent!
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
