[darcs-users] Colin Walters blogs on Arch changesets vs Darcs

[David Roundy]

On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:03:46PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
...
> But if you make three new repositories, one with the first patch, one 
> with the second, and one with the markers, then create a new repository 
> and pull each of the single-patch repos into that, you end up with darcs 
> attempting to resolve things as:
> 
> v v v v v v v
> here is the second
> conflicting patch
> *************
> v v v v v v v
> contents of
> first conflicting patch
> *************
> vvvvv
> ^^^^^
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
> 
> So in spite of having the _exact same_ inventory in the new repository 
> as in the original one, we've got completely different contents.

The key thing here is that it's only the working directories that differ.
You can make them identical by running revert and resolve.

This is one of the issues I want to fix after the new merge conflict code
is in.

> On the upside, that means if I hax0r my GUI the way I'm thinking of, I'm 
> not introducing any /new/ breakage. :)
> 
> Summarising the problem: if you start with applying X and Y and Z to the 
> same repository, you can unmerge them and apply X, Y and Z independently 
> to the repository, but you can't go back from those to the original 
> clean X, Y, Z combination you had to start with. So some information got 
> lost there in the unmerge step. It doesn't get lost when you merely 
> commute the patches, though, so putting in dependencies would be 
> overkill. On the other hand, I just don't see anywhere the missing 
> information can go, that it won't just continue getting lost...

I'm a little unclear, here, as to what information was getting lost...
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.darcs.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20041127/0a9f8839/attachment.pgp