On 21/04/2011 06:54 PM, Darren New wrote:

> OK. All the confusions you think you're seeing in git are due to Darcs
> just not being able to do what git does.
>
> When Darcs gets a merge conflict, it just doesn't apply *either* patch.
>
> "Darcs escapes this problem by ignoring those parts of the patches that
> conflict."

Interesting. And here I was thinking it marks the conflicting parts of 
the files for you so you can go fix it...

> "If the conflict is with one of your not-yet-published patches, you may
> choose to amend that patch rather than creating a resolve patch."
>
> And that's exactly what the "git merge" command does.

I thought "git merge" just combines changes, not resolves conflicts.

> "This is how a project with many contributors, but every contribution is
> reviewed and manually applied by the project leader, can be run." This
> is the bit about sending email you were talking about. git can work that
> way, and the terrible "merge" problems you're talking about are handled
> the same way: the guy getting the patches fixes the merge.
>
> What Darcs apparently can't do is support any way of doing distributed
> development with an authoritative repository *without* someone dedicated
> to fixing the merge conflicts. That's where the whole rant you're
> talking about came from.

I wasn't even talking about conflicts. I'm talking about the fact that 
if the central repo changes, even in a way which does *not* conflict 
with your changes, you still have to update your local repo, remerge all 
the changes, and try again.

> I'll grant you that Darcs is definitely simpler, but I think it's less
> capable also, and that's the primary place the simplicity comes from.

I disagree, but I don't think this argument is going anywhere productive 
right now.

> The Darcs replace command is interesting, but I'm not sure how well that
> would work in practice, especially in languages with complex scoping.

Yeah, it's only really useful for global names (e.g., functions or 
types). If you've got a dozen functions with a variable named "x1" and 
you want to make it "x_in" in one of them... yeah, good luck. Really, 
you're going to have to sort it out by hand.

What should *really* happen is that Darcs looks at your edits and 
*detects* that it's a find-and-replace affecting only certain lines, and 
record that. But anyway...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message