Issue 2138: whatsnew --summary does not report conflict marker - Darcs bug tracker

Title	whatsnew --summary does not report conflict marker
Priority	feature	Status	needs-implementation
Milestone		Resolved in
Superseder		Nosy List	ganesh
Assigned To		Topics	Conflicts

Created on 2012-02-03.21:26:26 by lelegaifax, last changed 2020-08-02.08:23:25 by bfrk.

Messages
msg15087 (view)	Author: lelegaifax	Date: 2012-02-03.21:26:24
Accordingly to the "darcs whatsnew --help" documentation when two patches produce a conflict the summary should report that with a "!", but it does not as of darcs 2.5.2. $ darcs wha hunk ./f 2 +v v v v v v v +============= +Conflict on side R +************* +Conflict on side S +^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ $ darcs wha -s M ./f +6 I'll send a test script as soon as I have the issue number back. Thanks&bye, lele.
msg15110 (view)	Author: lelegaifax	Date: 2012-02-12.09:59:02
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:26:26 +0000 Lele Gaifax <bugs@darcs.net> wrote: > Accordingly to the "darcs whatsnew --help" documentation when two > patches produce a conflict the summary should report that with a "!", > but it does not as of darcs 2.5.2. FWIW, neither does darcs 2.3.1...
msg19027 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2016-02-12.16:56:32
Neither did Darcs 2.2, nor Darcs 2.10.3!
msg19180 (view)	Author: noreply	Date: 2016-04-19.15:16:20
The following patch sent by Guillaume Hoffmann <guillaumh@gmail.com> updated issue issue2138 with status=resolved;resolvedin=2.12.0 HEAD * resolve issue2138: report conflicting files in whatsnew -s Ignore-this: 557303998dc5181e160d159959d7b40a
msg22376 (view)	Author: bfrk	Date: 2020-08-02.08:13:37
Reopening this issue since the fix has been rolled back because of issue2541. patch ce55e2df8ba319192b28358775a17ad378dc0db9 Author: Guillaume Hoffmann <guillaumh@gmail.com> Date: Tue Dec 19 18:40:29 CET 2017 * no longer show conflicting files on whatsnew -s rollback of 585efe389622886c8de70c26100676ed336e2eb7 until we find a way to make this work with an acceptable performance
msg22378 (view)	Author: bfrk	Date: 2020-08-02.08:23:22
This is easy to implement, as shown by the rolled back fix. The challenge is to do it without performance regression. See the (closed) issue2541 for ideas how to do that.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2012-02-03 21:26:26	lelegaifax	create
2012-02-12 09:59:03	lelegaifax	set	messages: + msg15110
2016-02-12 16:56:34	gh	set	priority: bug status: unknown -> needs-implementation topic: + Conflicts messages: + msg19027 milestone: 2.12.0
2016-04-04 17:16:40	gh	set	nosy: + ganesh, - lelegaifax
2016-04-19 15:16:21	noreply	set	status: needs-implementation -> resolved messages: + msg19180 resolvedin: 2.12.0
2020-08-02 08:13:40	bfrk	set	priority: bug -> feature status: resolved -> needs-implementation resolvedin: 2.12.0 -> messages: + msg22376 milestone: 2.12.0 ->
2020-08-02 08:23:25	bfrk	set	messages: + msg22378