On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:55:04AM +0000, James Cook wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote: > > Am 20.11.20 um 13:24 schrieb Ben Franksen: > > >> I would like a patch theory where > > >> conflict resolutions are just new patches that replace the conflicting > > >> ones, and don't depend on the patches they're resolving. > > > > What follows started out as describing a potential problem with this > > idea, but in the end I found that is is easily solvable. The result may > > even be an improvement over what we have today. > > > > Remember that the actual named patches that the user interacts with > > consist of multiple primitive patches (a "changeset"). Suppose for named > > patches A=(a1;a2) and B=(b1;b2) we have a conflict, but only between a1 > > and b1 (this is a pretty typical scenario). > > That's a good point. I wonder if it could happen with prim patches alone, > though. Maybe some combination of hunks and substitutions, for example.
Oops, I didn't read your example carefully enough, and responded instead to what I imagined you were talking about. Hopefully the rest of my email still makes sense :-) (I imagined you were suggesting that my example is avoided if you somehow shift the focus to prim patches instead of patches. The example I put together required each patch to be made of multiple prims.) -- James _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
