Issue 2482 darcs mark-conflicts FILE

Title darcs mark-conflicts FILE
Priority feature Status unknown
Milestone Resolved in 2.14.0
Superseder Nosy List gh
Assigned To

Created on 2015-12-22.12:57:06 by gh, last changed 2019-05-02.14:02:15 by ganesh.

msg18873 (view) Author: gh Date: 2015-12-22.12:57:04
As of Darcs 2.10.2, it is not possible to mark conflicts only in a given
file/a list of given files. That is, mark-conflicts always trashes all
changes in all files of the working copy.
msg19059 (view) Author: bf Date: 2016-03-09.02:40:30
I have a working patch for this (tested in simple scenarios). Could be
ready for 2.12.

As usual I got side-tracked by trying to implement something much
better. Instead of just limiting the destruction to the files given on
the command line, why not try to /merge/ the markup with the working
tree? But this needs to be a special merge, one that /refuses/ to add
new conflicts and instead offers the user a choice to (a) keep the
working tree version, discarding the markup that conflicts with the
user's changes, or (b) replace the user's changes with the markup
(defaulting to (a) as the less destructive choice). The choice should be
offered on a per-hunk basis and only when necessary, automatically
keeping as much of the user's changes as possible.
msg19128 (view) Author: gh Date: 2016-04-01.19:52:00
Well, as you want, but maybe a patch that just brings the mark-conflict
behaviour to a per-file granularity is good to have for the moment.
Date User Action Args
2015-12-22 12:57:06ghcreate
2015-12-24 08:40:31imzsetpriority: bug
2016-03-09 02:40:32bfsetpriority: bug -> feature
status: unknown -> needs-implementation
messages: + msg19059
2016-04-01 19:52:01ghsetmessages: + msg19128
2017-10-10 17:04:22ghsetstatus: needs-implementation -> resolved
resolvedin: 2.14.0
2019-05-02 12:13:26marthasimonssetstatus: resolved -> unknown
messages: + msg20664
2019-05-02 14:02:15ganeshsetmessages: - msg20664