[darcs-users] Colin Walters blogs on Arch changesets vs Darcs
kha at treskal.com
Sun Nov 28 12:54:05 UTC 2004
On 2004-11-28 07:56:50 -0400, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> 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
This feels like a filesystem-level analogy of conflict markers. I like
> 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
> So the way to resolve it ought to be to run "darcs mv temporaryname1
> contendedname" or "darcs mv temporaryname2 contendedname".
This feels right too. I hope it's logically consistent with the rest
of darcs. :-)
Karl Hasselström, kha at treskal.com
More information about the darcs-users