[darcs-users] Conflict marking

Thomas Zander zander at kde.org
Wed Oct 5 09:47:13 UTC 2005


On Wednesday 05 October 2005 05:09, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> > You're asking why darcs doesn't label the text that came from the
> > local copy versus the text that came from the pulled patch, right?  I
>
> Yes.

This far I agree with both of you, but where Stephen tries to identify the 
patch that produced the local source file, I disagree.

Basically, what cvs does is something like this:

: >>>>>>>>>  1.5
foo
==========
bar
<<<<<<<<<< 1.7


What we could do is the following;

V V V V V V  [local]
foo
*********** [2005foo - the full name of the patch that holds the code in \
the next part]
bar
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

This makes it obvious that the [local] was the state of the file before 
any pulling.  This info in itself alone is more then enough for the 
majority of the cases.  In contrast to what Stephen tried to do, I find 
it completely useless to provide anything more detailed then just the 
word 'local'.

My objection to the above presented solution is that the text between the 
[ and ] is too long.  And can get quite a bit longer as well.
So, what I thought is that we had a proposal for a local version number 
based on some sort of hashing the other day. We can use that instead of 
the full named patch to make it easy to fit on one line.

Hope that explains it a bit better.
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20051005/550567a9/attachment.pgp 


More information about the darcs-users mailing list