[darcs-devel] Re: [darcs-conflicts] bit more of a summary of new
conflict-handling ideas
Ganesh Sittampalam
ganesh at earth.li
Wed Jul 12 12:53:57 PDT 2006
Some random comments about the bits I can digest easily:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, David Roundy wrote:
> 2. We're going to have to be doing considerably more rearranging and
> modifying of patches than in current darcs, in which a patch file is
> untouched after it's created in a repository.
Is this true of optimize --reorder? If not, are gets already unsafe in
that particular case?
> 5. (The crazy idea) The new scheme is going to have to treat primitive
> patches as the "first-class" objects, rather than named composite
> patches as is currently the case.
This is a good thing anyway. Conflicts/dependencies with small parts of
composite patches causing the whole lot to cause problems (e.g. inability
to unpull a dependend-on patch) is a real nuisance sometimes.
> I've now got a new related idea, which has a very strong appeal. How
> about we make the "name" (patch id, or PatchInfo) of a patch no longer
> be part of its identity, but instead be a sort of tag that's attached to
> it? So that a given primitive patch could now have more than one name.
This sounds good.
> This would give us "for free" the feature that patches that are
> identical except in name do not conflict.
I've said this before, but please don't allow this to happen without human
confirmation that it should. I know that in 99% of cases it's what's
wanted, but in the other 1% or 0.1% it's not, and it's much harder to sort
out the mess when it's happened unwantedly than vice versa.
Cheers,
Ganesh
More information about the darcs-devel
mailing list