Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers

[Aaron Bentley]

Tom Lord wrote:
>     > [mixed tag/commit versions vs. update]

> I understand you to be saying that `update' should better handle mixed
> versions _or_ mixed versions should be prohibited.

Update in particular looks okay from the outside, using greedy revlibs. 
     (I'm starting to suspect that it does the wrong thing if it has no 
access to the revisions in question.)

Because of the tutorial's warning, I'm concerned that other operations 
will blow up, so I haven't used mixed versions.

> Prohibiting mixed versions is not an option.  They are quite useful.
> To choose an extreme example, in a version that exists only to be used
> with `get', they are clearly handy.

Okay, it sounds as if you actually want to support mixed versions. 
Obviously, we can't Do The Right Thing for cases with no obvious right 
thing.  But there are levels of support, and a basic level of no 
crashes, readable errors, and no destructive behaviour seems like a 
reasonable target.  Perhaps we're there already.

> There is a bogosity I'm surprised you haven't brought up.   Currently,
> the result produced by `update' _for_a_mixed_version_ is
> non-deterministic.   It depends on the state of your revision
> libraries.    

I think the disconnect is due to my use of greedy libraries.  I always 
have or get the revisions in question, so it always does apply-delta. 
In other cases, it does replay, correct?

> _Perhaps_ that should be fixed.

Well, if you're not going to forbid it, I think ensuring consistent 
behaviour makes sense.

Aaron