Pavel Cahyna <pavel.cah...@matfyz.cz> writes: > Hello, > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:22:10AM -0500, Stephen Leake wrote: >> > A few things have to happen before, though: >> > >> > * Had anybody beside the implementor taken a deeper look and tried the >> > new mtn conflicts functionality? Is this ready to ship as is? >> >> not to my knowledge; one person used it and aggreed it was an >> improvement over the current conflict resolution process (which is >> still there). > > What is the status of the planned "file sutures"?
That implementation (on n.v.m.automate_show_conflict) is on indefinite hold; it turned out to be much more work, and I suspect much more controversial, than I initially thought. > Are they related to the new conflicts functionality? I adapted some of the techniques from the file sutures/conflict resolution stuff to the current conflicts functions. Merging from main back to n.v.m.automate_show_conflict would now be complicated, because some of the conflict resolution stuff is conflicting between the two branches. > I am asking mainly because they could fix a really annoying problem > with "pluck" IIUC: that if you pluck a revision which introduces a > file, monotone does not recognize it as the same file as the > original one and subsequent pluck which modify this file will fail. > See > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/monotone-devel/2007-08/msg00159.html I don't see how "file suture" would solve that; there are not two files being sutured. I'm not sure what would solve that. You could try your test case on the n.v.m.automate_show_conflict branch, and see what happens. -- -- Stephe _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel