[darcs-users] conflict marking UI (Was: Darcs for GHC)
Eric Kow
kowey at darcs.net
Thu Jun 18 08:12:36 UTC 2009
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 14:38:35 +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
> Ben Franksen <benjamin.franksen at bessy.de> writes:
>
> > I often wondered why darcs didn't just say
> >
> > v v v v v v <patch description of patch1>
> > conflicting stuff from patch1
> > * * * * * *
> > conflicting stuff from patch2
> > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <patch description of patch1>
> Patches welcome! :-)
So in the original context for this thread, I mentioned our reasons for
not working on this just yet (likely easier to start from camp), and
that in the meantime somebody should start a UI discussion on how
improved marking should work. Thanks, for starting this, Ben!
And now Jason has highlighted some other issues to consider:
- conflicts between N patches
- nested conflicts
- non-hunk conflicts (e.g. rename)
To that I might add
- length of patch descriptions?
- do patch hashes have a role in this?
Maybe something like this, instead, generalising to N patches
v v v v v v <patch description of patch1>
conflicting stuff from patch1
* * * * * * <patch description of patch2>
conflicting stuff from patch2
* * * * * * <patch description of patch3>
conflicting stuff from patch3
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ <patch1 to patch3>
Where the patch descriptions are the first 30 chars (or maybe the first
30 chars excluding vowels :-P). Not sure how the "patch1 to patch3"
summary would work, though.
Thoughts?
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20090618/03e88fda/attachment.pgp>
More information about the darcs-users
mailing list