Daniel Carrera wrote:
I tested in Mercurial and I could not reproduce the stated behaviour.
Can anyone suggest a different example of a merge that is "complicated"
in a different VCS (e.g. requires more steps or human intervention) but
is simple in Darcs?
Ok, I have an example. This one is with Mercurial (I haven't tested with
other systems). Again, the theme is not that Mercurial gets it wrong,
but that it requires an extra step, a merge patch, like the sort of
thing that Guillaume was talking about.
# Branch 1
###########
$ mkdir hg_1
$ cd hg_1
$ hg init
$ echo "Patch A" > Foo.txt
$ hg add Foo.txt
$ hg commit -m "Added patch A"
# Branch 2
###########
$ cd ..
$ hg clone hg_1 hg_2
$ cd hg_2
$ hg mv Foo.txt Bar.txt
$ hg commit -m "Rename Foo to Bar"
# Branch 1
###########
$ cd ../hg_1
$ echo "Edit contents" >> Foo.txt
$ hg commit -m "Edit contents"
# Merge
###########
$ cd ../hg_2
$ hg pull ../hg_1
pulling from ../hg_1
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)
(run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)
Note: Now we have two heads and we have to run 'hg merge'.
Cheers,
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
darcs-users@darcs.net
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
