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

Zooko O'Whielacronx zooko at zooko.com
Sun Nov 28 11:56:50 UTC 2004

On 2004, Nov 25, at 23:31, Andrew Pimlott wrote:

> The repo has to be in some state after the conflict, and what other
> state makes sense?

As has been mentioned more than once, after pulling two conflicting 
adds of a different file by the same name, it would make more sense for 
both of the files to be present (under different "temporary" names) 
rather than having neither of them.  This is what Codeville does.

Furthermore, it occurs to me that when the conflict is resolved, it is 
important for the resolution to specify *which* of the files was kept 
under the contentious name.  (For the same reason that darcs needs to 
know that you mv'ed a file from A to B instead of just knowing that you 
erased file A and created file B with the same contents.)

So the way to resolve it ought to be to run "darcs mv temporaryname1 
contendedname" or "darcs mv temporaryname2 contendedname".

What do you think?



More information about the darcs-users mailing list