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

[Jason Dagit]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen at bessy.de>wrote:

> 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
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


I agree in principle, although it's still a bit trickier.  Darcs allows
conflicts between more than 2 patches and I think the conflict markers
themselves can nest.  You can also have conflicts with rename patches and
those don't put in markers at all, if I recall correctly.  Also, I'm not
sure if the patch names are available by the time you get the conflict.  In
other words, I think this still requires a bit of clean up and refactoring
before we can just do it.  It's been a while since I looked at this code and
I may misremember some of the details so take this with a grain of salt.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090617/84d1c404/attachment.htm>