On 09.05.2012 18:54, Julian Foad wrote: > The second group concerns merging changes into a file from its own (past or > future) history; this kind of merge isn't a 'sync' so shouldn't be handled by > this code path.
We keep coming back to this ... I still don't understand /why/ we would need more than one merge algorithm, or why the symmetric merge would not work correctly in this case. Progress looks great otherwise. :) -- Brane
