On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <sten...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Joseph Gentle <jose...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yep. Similar but better, because using OT we can guarantee eventual >> consistency we don't need conflict markers and there's a bunch of >> edge cases darcs can't handle. >> > I was under the impression that darcs could handle all edge cases that > even git can't handle (e.g. the 'bug' where merging patch-by-patch in git > can result in different final status, than merging several patches at > once), and actually that darcs had no known edge cases.
Really? Maybe I don't understand darcs as well as I thought. @Michael? > Also, you mention that using OT you don't need conflict markers. Does this > mean that OT guarantees no conflicts at all, ever? If so, and this is just > pure curiosity, does this mean that OT could be the ultimate underlying > system to use by distributed version control systems? You actually *want* conflicts in a version control system. If we both independantly edit the same line of code, we've probably messed something up. For example, if we both delete a line and rewrite it, using the OT systems I know of, the text gets deleted but you end up with both rewrites in the final document. This probably isn't what you want. A conflict-free system is perfect for live editing (you'll fix any problems at arise while you edit), but we might want to add conflicts back in before making a kickass VCS on top of this stuff. We can add conflicts in through a custom transform function - but yeah, it would be awesome to do something like that on top of OT. -J > -- > Saludos, > Bruno González > > _______________________________________________ > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > http://www.stenyak.com
