On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 17:05:43 +0100, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote: > I'd like to propose that we change our conflict marking to include > the text from before the conflict as well as each of the possible > conflicting results.
> v v v v v v v > import Foo ( bar, baz ) > ============= > import Foo ( bar ) > ************* > import Foo ( bar, baz, blat ) > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sounds like a cheap and simple way to improve lives. I don't think there are any backward compatibility issues we need to worry about either. Our conflict marking representation isn't exactly beloved. I have some bikeshed questions for later, but I'm trying to retrain myself to moving forward on the principle and major questions before worrying about details. :-) For those interested in the sorry state of the Darcs conflicts UI, here are the open issues which we have on our radar: * conflict marking order is not consistent http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1958 * conflict marking should tell you which patches the sides of the conflict come from http://bugs.darcs.net/isuse833 * darcs changes should tell you which patches conflict with which http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1911 * darcs should make it very easy to know when you have a conflict http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1912 There are some UI mockups in these tickets showing what a Future Darcs might do for conflict marking -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> For a faster response, try +44 (0)1273 64 2905 or xmpp:ko...@jabber.fr (Jabber or Google Talk only)
pgp6DbdRDMXH2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
