[darcs-devel] Re: [darcs-conflicts] alternate (simplified) conflicts proposal.

[Simon Marlow]

I must admit, this formulation looked initially attractive, but having read up 
the dicsussion on IRC and the rest of this thread I now have some misgivings.

The problem (that I don't think was mentioned on the list, but was described by 
Igloo on IRC) is that sometimes two resolutions that should conflict don't.  eg. 
if A & B conflict, one developer resolves the conflict by killing A, the other 
by killing B, then the merge of the two repos kills both A & B.

To me, this illustrates a fundamental problem with the approach, and there's an 
easy way to describe why.  The resolution of a conflict is dependent on the 
conflicting changes: that is, it depends on both lines of development, not just 
the one beikng killed.  A resolution should say "I want to resolve these 
conflicting lines of development in the following way".  A resolution that just 
says "I want to kill these patches" doesn't express enough context, which leads 
to the problem above.

So to me, this idea seems just a little *too* simple.  But maybe there's an 
elboration that isn't too complicated?

Cheers,
	Simon