On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:17:33AM -0000, Eric Kow wrote:
> Hmm, yeah :-(
> 
> I was hoping that reducing it would help us to trace the error (what is the
> minimal set of patches we need to manipulate in order to generate this mystery
> hunk), but I guess it didn't really help.  I tried looking through the
> bug-{desktop,laptop} for a hint, but no luck yet.
> 
> One possible tip: notice that the email addresses attached to the patches are
> different.  It seems like the 'Gour <dev@atmarama.org>' address is for the
> desktop and the 'dev@atmarama.org' is for the laptop.  Maybe this can help us
> reconstruct the events that led up to this bad conflictor.
> 
> Is there any hope for darcs repair to fix something like this?  

No, I don't think so.  It's a non-local problem, meaning that for every
conflict, darcs would have to search the entire repository to ensure that
all the conflicting patches actually exist, and that would be extremely
expensive, and relevant only when there are bugs in Darcs.Patch.Real.

> In general, it might be nice for recovery, if there was something like a darcs
> rebase that let us yank out a patch and put something else in its place, if you
> know what I mean. [maybe I just got the idea of rebase wrong, but sort of a
> super-duper unsafe amend-record that lets us change patches and shift
> dependencies accordingly]

This can still be done by hand.  You just edit the patch file, insert the
hash of the new file in the inventory, and if it's not the main inventory
then you need to insert the hash of the new inventory into another
inventory, etc.  Tedious, but doable.
-- 
David Roundy
Department of Physics
Oregon State University