Re: [Monotone-devel] resolving name conflicts; file suturing vs drop

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi,

Thomas Moschny wrote:
> Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > Thomas Moschny wrote:
> > > However, we simply can't do that. We can't go back and treat two
> > > different file identities as a single one. Well, we can do it, locally,
> > > but only *as soon as we know about the users wish to do so*. And the user
> > > in turn cares to tell us only when ncc conflicts arise. And that's the
> > > point with Nathaniel's example: D knows about the problem, but E does
> > > not, so in E we have two nodes, and a delayed (=not yet resolved) content
> > > conflict popping up when we merge D and E.
> > Correct. Anything wrong with that behaviour?
>
> No, nothing wrong. This is a case however, our ui currently can't handle, 
> because when merging D and E, possibly two conflicts have to be solved for 
> the same file, because we have three versions to be merged into one.

Hm.. okay, for our current UI that might be true.

> > How do you expect to run into a "series with more than two content
> > conflicts on the same file" given only suturing as an additional feature?
>
> Well, that was what njs' example was all about, and what I tried to explain 
> (again) above. When merging D and E, you we have to suddenly merge three 
> versions of the same file. This is what I call a "series with more than two 
> content conflicts on the same file".

Can you please be more specific? Which three versions of the same file 
are you referring to? I only see two: those in D and E.

> > You were still assuming nodes could change their aliveness state on one
> > branch and be sutured on another branch and still merge cleanly.
>
> No, I don't. I already said that I consider it reasonable to mark the 
> aliveness state when changing, renaming, or maybe suturing nodes. The effect 
> of this is that dropping in another branch would conflict with these 
> operations, and thus I think I agree with you on that point, but simply 
> expressed it differently.

Oh, okay, I didn't realize that. Maybe because I'm not thinking in terms 
of aliveness state, yet. I'm still trying to avoid having to bite that 
bullet.

Regards

Markus