> > How do we present this at the user level?
> >
> > The unresolved conflict is probably presented quite similar to how we do
> > it in Darcs now: we tell them that there is a conflict between A and B
> > and present the alternatives a1 and b1 as the "content" of the conflict,
> > e.g. using
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:55:04AM +, James Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote:
> > Am 20.11.20 um 13:24 schrieb Ben Franksen:
> > >> I would like a patch theory where
> > >> conflict resolutions are just new patches that replace the conflicting
> > >>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote:
> Am 20.11.20 um 13:24 schrieb Ben Franksen:
> >> I would like a patch theory where
> >> conflict resolutions are just new patches that replace the conflicting
> >> ones, and don't depend on the patches they're resolving.
>
> What
Am 20.11.20 um 13:24 schrieb Ben Franksen:
>> I would like a patch theory where
>> conflict resolutions are just new patches that replace the conflicting
>> ones, and don't depend on the patches they're resolving.
What follows started out as describing a potential problem with this
idea, but in
Hi James
Am 19.11.20 um 22:44 schrieb James Cook:
I still wonder if a consistent patch theory *different* from
camp/darcs-3 could be devised in which conflict resolutions really are
freely exchangeable with the conflicted patches instead of depending on
them. In other words,
