Re: [Monotone-devel] sutures [Re: Time for a release]

[Stephen Leake]

Pavel Cahyna <address@hidden> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:22:10AM -0500, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> > A few things have to happen before, though:
>> >
>> > * Had anybody beside the implementor taken a deeper look and tried the
>> > new mtn conflicts functionality? Is this ready to ship as is?
>> 
>> not to my knowledge; one person used it and aggreed it was an
>> improvement over the current conflict resolution process (which is
>> still there).
>
> What is the status of the planned "file sutures"? 

That implementation (on n.v.m.automate_show_conflict) is on indefinite
hold; it turned out to be much more work, and I suspect much more
controversial, than I initially thought.

> Are they related to the new conflicts functionality? 

I adapted some of the techniques from the file sutures/conflict
resolution stuff to the current conflicts functions. 

Merging from main back to n.v.m.automate_show_conflict would now be
complicated, because some of the conflict resolution stuff is
conflicting between the two branches.

> I am asking mainly because they could fix a really annoying problem
> with "pluck" IIUC: that if you pluck a revision which introduces a
> file, monotone does not recognize it as the same file as the
> original one and subsequent pluck which modify this file will fail.
> See
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/monotone-devel/2007-08/msg00159.html

I don't see how "file suture" would solve that; there are not two
files being sutured. 

I'm not sure what would solve that.

You could try your test case on the n.v.m.automate_show_conflict
branch, and see what happens. 

-- 
-- Stephe