Hi Göran,

Göran Krampe wrote:
> ...
> Yes, I agree - and DS was not meant to replace MC. MC does snapshots 
> and maintains their history and DS captures "developer changes" in a 
> fine granular fashion. But a combo of MC and DS would probably be very 
> interesting.

If possible try to keep DS usable even without MC. Some people might 
choose to use DS and not MC...

>>>> That's *very* useful. One of my favorite features when using MC is 
>>>> that it can tell us if there is a conflict in a merge and that this 
>>>> method requires special attention. If DS can do something similar 
>>>> by telling us that the base version of a method is different from 
>>>> when the DS was created this will be hugely helpful.
>>>
>>> This is in fact the *core idea*. The idea came about after watching 
>>> Linus thoughts on git and to think about how MC and most SCMs work. 
>>> They all get their "merge magic" from extensive knowledge of history 
>>> to a common base. But that is something we don't have between forks.
>>
>> Why not? Actually we do. MC will search any repository you add and if 
>> it finds any common ancestor in any of the repositories it will use 
>> that. 
>
> Yes, I know. But I still think we will end up with situations where 
> the forks don't share enough history in order to do this. I may be wrong.

I agree with you. For example Cuis is not based on MC packages. So 
having "merge magic" without needing a common ancestor in MC would be 
wonderful.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich