For example:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.darcs.user/9129
or another archive of same discussion:
http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2005-December/009222.html
or another archive of same discussion:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=darcs-users&m=113600774107991&w=2

See also:

http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2005-April/007231.html
http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2005-May/007600.html

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 05:55:53PM +0000, Zooko wrote:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.darcs.user/9129
> or another archive of same discussion:
> http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2005-December/009222.html
> or another archive of same discussion:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=darcs-users&m=113600774107991&w=2

We might have a confusion of terminology here.  I didn't
consider the possibility of Mark Lentczner facing a
doppleganger.  I was only thinking of parallel patches
in general.  But since the "hang" happened after only two
mergers, a doppleganger might be the cause of the problem.

Mark,

When you described how you were using the base repo, I assumed
you did this knowingly to avoid dopplegangers.  The key point
is to have a single path for syncing changes between a darcs
branch and the CVS repo.  If, for example, another developer
working on the darcs branch does a CVS commit of one of the
changes in the darcs branch, these changes can loop back to
base on the next CVS update, where they will be recorded
a second time (as a doppleganger) in the update patch.
When the update patch is then pulled to working, it will
conflict in the worst possible way with the original patch.

I believe handling of doppleganger patches is considered "resolved in unstable".
 I'm marking it as such.

So... doppleganger patches have earned a certain notoriety, partly because of
their name.  Because of that, it may be useful if we specifically had a test for
doppelganger patches, just like we do for conflict fights.  We'd want to be able
to say, "darcs 2.0 fixes the doppleganger patch problem" among other things.

If you don't have a test for it, then how do you know it's fixed?

Regards,

Zooko

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:29:46PM -0800, zooko wrote:
> If you don't have a test for it, then how do you know it's fixed?

In developing the new patch semantics, I wrote many unit tests, all of
which pass for the new code.  It'd be good to also have a test that runs
darcs as a whole, as Eric suggested.
-- 
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University

I have now 'sent' conflict-doppleganger.pl which tests (successfully) that the
darcs-2 format no longer considers dopplegangers a conflict, while the old
format and the hashed format do (also as expected). 

   Mark