[darcs-users] Resolving conflicts in a push only repo

[Richard A. Smith]

> 
> The preferred route is to do exactly what the CVS/SVN people do: pull
> the conflict into your local repo, resolve it there, and then push the
> resolution up to the master along with your original patch. That way
> no-one else ever sees the conflict.

Thank you for the detailed explanation Jamie.  I reverted and unpulled 
the patch from the master repo and then followed the above.  Worked great.

I'm a converting CVS and SVN user so it was like a "DUH" when I read 
your post.  Odd that I didn't think about this before.  "Dummy mode on" 
as the BOFH used to say.

I have a general usage question on patch names for the conflict 
resolution.  Normally I name my patches by what they do so there is very 
little opportunity for namespace collision on patch names.
When fixing up conflicts however I don't really have that good a 
description for the patch.  And I foresee a lot of "sync_with_master" 
patch names.  I know that darcs will let you have duplicate patch names 
just fine but actually doing that just seems wrong to me.

What do you guys normally do for a patch name for your conflict fixup 
patches?

> If the pull flags up conflicts, you then have the choice of creating a
> new patch to remedy them, or amend-recording your existing patch
> (/only/ since you haven't yet pushed it anywhere).

Would one way be preferred over the other?  I guess if I did 
amend-record then I would not have to worry about my above naming hangups.

-- 
Richard A. Smith
Bitworks, Inc