The following scenario leads to conflicts with darcs 2.10:

# first repository
mkdir first
cd first
mkdir B
echo "Hello!" > B/first.txt
darcs init
darcs add B -r
darcs record -a
darcs mv B A
darcs record -a
cd ..

# second repository
mkdir second
mkdir A
echo "Hello!" > A/second.txt
darcs init
darcs add -r A
darcs record -a
cd ..

# third repository
mkdir third
darcs init
darcs pull -a ../first
darcs pull -a ../second

Why this was a conflict wasn't intuitive to me the first time I saw
it in my real repo.  In fact, its the first conflict I've ever run
into using darcs
for my own personal projects (as far as I remember).

Is this expected to be in conflict?  Is there something better that
darcs could be doing here?

I guess it was so supprising to me was that I think of conflicts as
disagreements between what the current state of the repository should
be - but here the conflict is because the histories of the
repositories are not compatible (I think?).

All in all it was a confusing experience.

-Antoine

Hi Antoine,

I've provided what I hope is an explanation here:
http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-December/016842.html

I regret that this is confusing, but I don't think there is much we can do about
it.  Perhaps I am mistaken.  Thanks!

I'll abuse the not-our-bug priority to indicate "this isn't actually a bug"

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Eric Kow <bugs@darcs.net> wrote:
>
> Eric Kow <kowey@darcs.net> added the comment:
>
> Hi Antoine,
>
> I've provided what I hope is an explanation here:
> http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2008-December/016842.html
>
> I regret that this is confusing, but I don't think there is much we can do about
> it.  Perhaps I am mistaken.  Thanks!
>
> I'll abuse the not-our-bug priority to indicate "this isn't actually a bug"
>

Sounds good enough.  as long as it's known.

-Antoine