2011/3/3 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <virik...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:39:11AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > > 2011/3/3 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <virik...@gmail.com> > > > This could have worked, if the first merge of the end of January did > not > > > have > > > any rename. It had renames, and due to this, the last merge attempt > > > complained > > > about this like this: > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file1 > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file2 > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file3 > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file4 > > > .... > > > > > > > Can you use the --baseline option to "merge" to specify the common > ancestor > > checkin that you want the merge to use? > > It gives exactly the same behaviour as without it, if we set the --baseline > to > the output of "fossil test-find-pivot A trunk". > > I always thought the merge used always the 'shortest path', instead of what > the > description of "--baseline" says about: "... instead of the nearest common > ancestor". >
Without --baseline, merge uses the nearest common ancestor, as determined by the same algorithm used for test-find-pivot. The test-find-pivot command is (as its name suggests) a test procedure used to test and debug the algorithm for finding the nearest common ancestor. So you are saying that test-find-pivot is not finding the ancestor you think it ought to be finding? > > Thank you, > Lluís. > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
