> > I'd say this is a feature, not a bug. If you mark the conflict between A
> > and B as resolved, *without* recording a new patch, then this means you
> > are satisfied with the resolution that reverts both changes. There is no
> > reason why pulling C should conflict now. If, on the other hand,
Am 03.07.20 um 23:44 schrieb Ben Franksen:
> Am 03.07.20 um 22:22 schrieb James Cook:
>> I think I've found a new problem with Proposition 5, though.
>>
>> Suppose A, B and C are three mutually conflicting patches with
>> starting context s.
>>
>> Suppose I merge A and B, then I use Proposition 5 t
Am 03.07.20 um 22:22 schrieb James Cook:
>>> But yes, I realized after writing it that I never covered inverting
>>> extended patches.
>>>
>>> Thinking about it more, I think I've found some problems. Let's say s
>>> is the starting context of A and B, and A ends with a and B ends with
>>> B. Here
> > But yes, I realized after writing it that I never covered inverting
> > extended patches.
> >
> > Thinking about it more, I think I've found some problems. Let's say s
> > is the starting context of A and B, and A ends with a and B ends with
> > B. Here are three problems:
> >
> > (a) I'm not s
Am 03.07.20 um 05:22 schrieb James Cook:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 18:40, Ben Franksen
> wrote:> The final chapter about the effect of extended patches and how
> to
>> resolve the conflicts they represent could use a bit of elaboration. For
>> instance, though you refer to the process, you haven't e
