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

Andrew Pimlott andrew at pimlott.net
Tue Jul 27 01:09:35 UTC 2004

[Replying to old mail.]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 06:51:48AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> On the whole, I think we're better off with a separate command here.  I
> think what you'd really want is something I wasn't able to figure out how
> to do, which is to have the contents of a repo with a conflict in it
> include the marker.  I definitely wanted to do this, and tried for about a
> year to do so, but failed.  The problem is that there's no way that I was
> able to figure out to mark conflicts in a manner that will be reproducible
> regardless of the order of merging.

Why can't you use a simple alphabetical ordering of patch names?  The
concept strikes me as a win, because you want the tree to be
conspicuously broken after a conflict.

> I don't really remember what CVS-style markers look like, and when I played
> with diff3 a bit, I couldn't get it to produce anything that seemed
> familiar.  You're welcome to submit a patch making this change, hopefully
> extending it to the multi-way conflict in a consistent manner, and I'll see
> how it looks.  Since this is a pretty common request, unless I really don't
> like it (for example, if there's no consistent-looking way to extend it to
> a three-way conflict), I'll probably accept it.

If this is done, may I request the diff3 variant in which all three
(potentially N+1, where N is the number of contributing patches)
versions of the file are shown: with patch a, with patch b, and with
neither?  Two versions are really not enough to resolve a conflict.
(Other formats with equivalent information would be interesting to
consider.  For example, the original plus the text of the N conflicting
patches; or the N new versions plus the text of the N patches...


More information about the darcs-users mailing list