[darcs-users] Yet another conflict resolution idea.

[David Roundy]

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Petr Rockai <me at mornfall.net> wrote:
> Mostly obviously, this is just a mental draft and I would appreciate some
> feedback on that. Scenarios that are well served by the current approach and
> impossible (or hard) with the proposed one would be good. Any other thoughts
> (potenital problems in the concept) as well.
>
> I have been haskelling somewhat recently (I have implemented a simplistic
> compiler in haskell) so I might be more ready to tackle the darcs code. But it
> would make sense to have the concept at least reviewed before trying to put it
> into code.
>
> Thanks for your attention. If you need something to be cleared up, do not
> hesitate to ask.

The main issue with your idea is that it wouldn't be able to share
much code with darcs.  Sure, you could (and should) share the
primitive patch type and functions to manipulate it, but that's a
relatively small fraction of darcs' source code.  The other issue, of
course, is that you'd have to decide on semantics to implement and a
repository format that would allow implementation of those semantics.
It almost certainly would not look or behave much like darcs'
repository format.

David (who has already wasted enough time on conflicts)