Conflicts in removed files

[Algis Kabaila]

On Tuesday 15 December 2009 18:35:55 Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Algis Kabaila wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 December 2009 16:41:22 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >> As pointed out by David and IIRC Stefan, the conflicts are *not*
> >> spurious.
> >
> > No, they are not.  They are persistent, OK?
>
> When we say that conflicts are "spurious", we mean that they are
> unjustified or ill-founded.  "persistent" isn't the opposite of
> spurious.  The opposite of spurious is "real" or "valid".
>
The "persistent" was not meant to be opposite of "spurious",  just a little 
less emotive.  The "raising of temperature" is the last thing that is required 
in a discussion.  It is my considered opinion that in what Stefan has 
described, the conflicts that he experienced are surely "persistent".

I think that some of the discussion would be much clearer if it was recognised 
that file deletion is regarded as a change to the deleted file in the resolution 
process. This, at least to me, explains why the bzr system has a built in 
mechanism of conflict resolution which can give rise for persisten conflicts, 
viz. conflicts in removed files.  I suspect that the situation in some older vcs 
is very similar.  Basically, there are no universal solutions that would 
please every user.
>
> None of this means that we can't solve Stefan's issue to his
> satisfaction.  It just means that bzr should generate conflicts
> unless/until the user indicates a better way to handle them.
>
> Aaron

Good to hear that! I will keep looking for it - thank you again,

OldAl.

-- 
Algis Kabaila, MEngSc, PhD(Eng)
http://akabaila.pcug.org.au/StructuralAnalysis.pdf