> The only case Automerge cannot handle automatically, because there is no well-defined resolution, is when users concurrently update the same property in the same object (or, similarly, the same index in the same list). In this case, Automerge arbitrarily picks one of the concurrently written values as the "winner"
I think using the term 'arbitrarily' makes this seem less useful than it is. When I initially read it, I scoffed at this library.
What's critical is that it consistently and deterministically picks the same winner, so all copies of the data structure, once the same updates are applied, have a consistent view. That's so important and the authors do a disservice by not being explicit about this here.
I think using the term 'arbitrarily' makes this seem less useful than it is. When I initially read it, I scoffed at this library.
What's critical is that it consistently and deterministically picks the same winner, so all copies of the data structure, once the same updates are applied, have a consistent view. That's so important and the authors do a disservice by not being explicit about this here.