Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Merge frustration

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 10:54:52PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> writes:
> > I am not sure how you envision getting (1) and (2) simultaneously with
> > (3), though.  If we are not using the workspace to hold merge state,
> > then where could we store the "work [you] have done up to that point"?
> 
> Presumably you'd have to commit it to the database.  You could commit
> a revision on a special branch, net.venge.monotone.broken-merge, or
> something.  I guess you'd commit files with unresolved conflicts with
> something like the usual CVSish markers, and give them a "conflict"
> attribute.  Or something.  Maybe just on the same branch, but with a
> special "I'm broken" cert that would stop people from getting it
> accidentally.  (Which might be useful generally.)  Then people could
> explicitly update to that revision and resolve the conflicts one at a
> time in the obvious way, and when the final conflict attribute goes,
> that revision wouldn't have the "I'm broken cert" (or you'd try to
> propagate it back to the main branch).

The plan right now is to start by disallowing conflicted trees into
the database -- because if you allow them, then you run into the
interesting question of, what happens if people merge two conflicted
trees, and there are conflicts...

...this is the sort of question one would like to keep out of the
critical path.

> > And how can we present you with "all files at once" any more cleanly
> > than by writing them all out to a directory tree, and letting you use
> > your standard tools?
> 
> At least some merge tools can handle sets of files.  ediff can, for
> example.  I suspect it wants the files on disk, though, but then you
> need that anyway, I guess.

Right.

-- Nathaniel

-- 
"But in Middle-earth, the distinct accusative case disappeared from
the speech of the Noldor (such things happen when you are busy
fighting Orcs, Balrogs, and Dragons)."