[darcs-users] User interface for conflicts: confusing enough to lose data

David Roundy droundy at abridgegame.org
Fri Jul 2 12:42:52 UTC 2004

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 08:48:16PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> DR> I think what you'd really want is something I wasn't able to
> DR> figure out how to do, which is to have the contents of a repo with
> DR> a conflict in it include the marker.
> Yes, that would be ideal.
> DR>  I definitely wanted to do this, and tried for about a year to do
> DR> so, but failed.  The problem is that there's no way that I was
> DR> able to figure out to mark conflicts in a manner that will be
> DR> reproducible regardless of the order of merging.
> Why do you want it to be deterministic?  As long as darcs behaves
> deterministically when there are no unresolved conflicts, and it
> always marks at least one conflict when there are, I'd be happy.
> I think of unresolved conflicts as being an error situation.  In an
> error situation, you're perfectly justified in behaving in any way you
> desire as long as you (1) don't trash the user's data and (2) report
> at least one error.  This is enough for the user to repair the
> erroneous situation, and get his repo back to a consistent state.

It needs to be deterministic becuase the fundamental precept of darcs is
that a set of patches defines a repository state.  If this wasn't
true... well darcs wouldn't work.
David Roundy

More information about the darcs-users mailing list