Re: Conflicts...?

On 20/11/2007, at 2:55 AM, David Roundy wrote:

>> it sounds like you've found one.  I tried searching the archives,
>> and I found a lot of discussion, but it was hard to find what the
>> final solution was (there seemed to be a bunch of options and it  
>> isn't
>> clear which one was chosen and what its final form was).

>
> Actually, things have been in flux over the last couple of weeks.  The
> problem is certainly not solved yet, but we've got a good idea that it
> *can* be solved, and hints as to how we can do that.
>
> Most recently, I've decided to give up (for now, at least) on the  
> idea of
> treating inverses nicely in the case of a conflict, as that was  
> generating
> way too many special cases.  In fact, it's starting to look like the
> implementable semantics are shockingly similar to those that darcs  
> already
> (incompletely and inefficiently) implements.  I'd rather not explain  
> in
> detail just yet, as I've got a limited amount of time, and alas  
> another bit
> of the (new) code requires a rewrite, as I now understand...  :(
>
> So progress is being made, and I think I've got a working model, but  
> since
> it's less than two weeks old (but based on the continuous work of a  
> few
> months), I think it's better to get it actually coded up and working  
> (on
> test cases) before explaining it (as that often reveals problems with
> ideas).

Great.  Thanks for the update.  Good luck figuring it all out - I've  
been playing
with some patch theory myself recently.  I'll probably post to revctrl  
soon so
you'll see that stuff.

Be well,

Will     :-}