[Gnu-arch-users] Re: practical questions of archive ownership

[Miles Bader]

Andrew Suffield <address@hidden> writes:
> Here you want a patch queue manager. Your central archive then belongs
> to a program which does all the merging (conflicts are "handled" by
> bouncing the group of changes - no conflict resolution occurs in this
> archive).

I'm not sure why I would want this; it sounds like to sanely be able to
resolve `bounced' conflicts, each developer would have to maintain
exactly the same update/resolve discipline with a patch-queue manager
system as with the manual case, only the commit step would be different
-- sending to PQM.  Since this style of commits would have increased
latency compared to a normal commit it seems like it would have a
greater chance of incurring more conflicts.

Or is the theory that conflicts are rare and so one must only
update/resolve against the canonical branch when they happen?

-Miles
-- 
Saa, shall we dance?  (from a dance-class advertisement)