Walter, On Fri, 2011-01-07 at 10:54 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: > Russel Winder wrote: > >> One thing I would dearly like is to be able to merge branches using meld. > >> > >> http://meld.sourceforge.net/ > > > > Why? > > Because meld makes it easy to review, selectively merge, and do a bit of > editing > all in one go.
Hummm . . . these days that is seen as being counter-productive to having a full and complete record of the evolution of a project. These days it is assumed that a reviewed changeset is committed as is and then further amendments made as a separate follow-up changeset. A core factor here is of attribution and publicity of who did what. By committing reviewed changesets before amending them, the originator of the changeset is noted as the author of the changeset in the history. As I understand the consequences of the above system, you are always shown as the committer of every change -- but I may just have got this wrong, I haven't actually looked at the DMD repository. > > Mercurial, Bazaar and Git all support a variety of three-way merge tools > > including meld, but the whole point of branching and merging is that you > > don't do it manually -- except in Subversion where merging branching > > remains a problem. > > But I want to do it manually. Clearly I don't understand your workflow. When I used Subversion, its merge capabilities were effectively none -- and as I understand it, things have not got any better in reality despite all the publicity about new merge support. So handling changesets from branches and elsewhere always had to be a manual activity. Maintaining a truly correct history was effectively impossible. Now with Bazaar, Mercurial and Git, merge is so crucial to the very essence of what these systems do that I cannot conceive of manually merging except to resolve actual conflicts. Branch and merge is so trivially easy in all of Bazaar, Mercurial and Git, that it changes workflows. Reviewing changesets is still a crucially important thing, but merging them should not be part of that process. > > With Mercurial, Bazaar and Git, if you accept a changeset from a branch > > you jsut merge it, e.g. > > > > git merge some-feature-branch > > > > job done. If you want to amend the changeset before committing to HEAD > > then create a feature branch, merge the incoming changeset to the > > feature branch, work on it till satisfied, merge to HEAD. > > > > The only time I used meld these days is to process merge conflicts, not > > to handle merging per se. > > I've always been highly suspicious of the auto-detection of a 3 way merge > conflict. I have always been highly suspicious that compilers can optimize my code better than I can ;-) -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
