[darcs-users] Re: identical change conflict?

Aaron Denney wnoise at ofb.net
Tue Mar 22 16:23:57 UTC 2005


On 2005-03-22, Deliverable Mail <deliverable at gmail.com> wrote:
> In case you don't follow all that mumbo-jumbo with multiple SCMs,
> here's a simple, purely darcs case.  Create a local repo and mirror it
> in a remote repo.  Create a text file in one repo and sync it into
> the other.  Now do this: add a line to the file in the local repo and
> record.  Then go to the remote, ADD THE SAME LINE MANUALLY BEFORE
> SYNCING, so that the files are now in fact identical in source but not
> as recorded in the auxiliary _darcs directories.  Now darcs pull from local --
> you'll get a conflict, the SAME SINGLE LINE now surrounded 
> by angry arrowheads, without stars as it's, um, still THE SAME single line.
> If darcs were to check that the result of aplying the patch to the last
> commit would indeed yield the "modified" file verbatim, perhaps it might see
> there's no conflict and not bother with it?  At least I'd love to see
> an option to tell it that's the case, --auto-resolve-identical or
> something similar.

This has been brought up before.  It is in fact necessary that they
conflict, given how darcs works.  See
http://www.darcs.net/pipermail/darcs-users/2004-December/004649.html
for example, and a few other places, where people complain about the
horrible performance problems of merging.

This should probably be added to the manual, though the same issue
cropping up in a different guise is discussed in the "unrecord" section.

--auto-resolve-identical is an interesting idea though, to automatically
merge "identical conflicts".

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-





More information about the darcs-users mailing list