[darcs-users] Darcs for GHC [was: darcs weekly news #28]

[Ben Franksen]

Reviving an old discussion (as I am reading up on darcs-users)...

Eric Kow wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:19:19 +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>> Yes, exactly.  We want to work on branches and merge with the HEAD
>> regularly.  Darcs doesn't support this well because:
> 
>>  - conflicts are painful to resolve due to
>>    (a) unhelpful conflict markers
> 
> The current thinking is that the changes which Ian's darcs-3
> modifications to patch theory require will make this a lot easier to
> implement.  So it's not so much the difficulty that's causing us to
> hold off on this as it is the idea that we would be working much more
> efficiently if we did it in the darcs-3-core-then-conflict-marking
> order.
> 
> In the meantime, I think it it would be useful if somebody could lead a
> discussion on how good darcs-style conflict marking should work on a UI
> level.

I often wondered why darcs didn't just say

v v v v v v <patch description of patch1>
conflicting stuff from patch1
* * * * * * 
conflicting stuff from patch2
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <patch description of patch1>

instead of

v v v v v v
conflicting stuff from patch1
* * * * * * 
conflicting stuff from patch2
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Cheers
Ben