[darcs-users] add conflict avoidance idea... (need input)

[Andrew Pimlott]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 06:15:19AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> The current code just picks one path through the conflict essentially at
> random, and tries that.

I didn't understand what you meant by that until I tried an example with
rename.  When you say picks one path, you mean that the result of the
patches is "random", not just the result in the working directory, and
that this is not considered a conflict!  I think this is awful behavior,
and that your idea of representing an add as an add+move would be a
regression.  Even if conflicts are confusing, I don't think that anyone
wants silent, random results when they exist.

I think that rename resolution should be changed to create a merger.
The current behavior is just like picking one of two conflicting hunks
at random.

I doubt that file add/rename conflicts happen often anyway, and when
they do, there will be more problems than just the namespace conflict:
all the hunks will be incompatible as well.

Andrew