[darcs-users] Write-up on "tree repositories" as an alternative to conflictors

[James Cook]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:53:24PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote:
> Two minor remarks.
> 
> > 4.2.7 Reactivating a patch
> > As promised in Section 4.1.3, it is possible to re-activate a previously deactivated patch p. First, it is likely the user will need to de-activate patches p conflicts with, as well as patches that conflict with p’s dependencies if those are also being re-activated. Section 4.2.6 explains how to deactivate these patches and the patches that depend on them.
> 
> Obviously, dependencies of p /have/ to be reactivated along with p, so
> the "if" is misleading here.

Thanks; reworded:
https://hub.darcs.net/falsifian/misc-pub/patch/2343bc9d163b31df5a5f29de85641ac4e71d645c

(I originally put the "if" there since p's dependencies might already
all be active.)

> > • Insert p and its dependencies into the chosen resolution. We already have
> > a copy of them somewhere: recall that a tree repository is a pair (T, C); T
> > and C together contain all active and deactivated patches in the repository.
> > Some commuting may be needed. (TODO: elabourate?)
> 
> Indeed this should be elaborated!

Hm, I think it would follow from something like the "weak converse" I
mention in the Aside at the end of 4.2.1. Maybe I should turn that into
a lemma and use it here. Note I haven't read your later emails yet; I'm
not sure if you commented on 4.2.1.

> Cheers
> Ben
> 
> _______________________________________________
> darcs-users mailing list
> darcs-users at osuosl.org
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users

-- 
James