[darcs-users] How to extend a patch theory to fully commute

[James Cook]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 12:55:04AM +0000, James Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 06:45:49PM +0100, Ben Franksen wrote:
> > Am 20.11.20 um 13:24 schrieb Ben Franksen:
> > >> I would like a patch theory where
> > >> conflict resolutions are just new patches that replace the conflicting
> > >> ones, and don't depend on the patches they're resolving.
> > 
> > What follows started out as describing a potential problem with this
> > idea, but in the end I found that is is easily solvable. The result may
> > even be an improvement over what we have today.
> > 
> > Remember that the actual named patches that the user interacts with
> > consist of multiple primitive patches (a "changeset"). Suppose for named
> > patches A=(a1;a2) and B=(b1;b2) we have a conflict, but only between a1
> > and b1 (this is a pretty typical scenario).
> 
> That's a good point. I wonder if it could happen with prim patches alone,
> though. Maybe some combination of hunks and substitutions, for example.

Oops, I didn't read your example carefully enough, and responded instead
to what I imagined you were talking about. Hopefully the rest of my email
still makes sense :-)

(I imagined you were suggesting that my example is avoided if you
somehow shift the focus to prim patches instead of patches. The
example I put together required each patch to be made of multiple
prims.)

-- 
James