On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 06:57:56PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > Suppose you have the "trunk" branch checked out and you have made changes to > file xyz.txt locally, but have not checked them in. Then you do a merge of > branch "other-branch": > > fossil merge other-branch > > The file xyz.txt has been deleted in other-branch. What should fossil's > response be? Should it retain the locally edited copy of xyz.txt, or should > it delete file xyz.txt?
I had added the ticket http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/tktview?name=67176c3aa4 regarding to this, because I was concerned with the current fossil behaviour. "svn" marks that as a special kind of conflict, showing additional lines on "svn status". Monotone has very careful ways of interaction for merge conflicts: http://www.monotone.ca/docs/Merge-Conflicts.html For fossil, by now, I think at least a merge conflict should be noted. By now the best I think should be to write appropiate notes in the working directory file, as in the case of usual merge conflicts. The notes could tell whatever happened. > If you have not made any local edits to xyz.txt when you do the merge, then > Fossil will delete the file. That seems like the right thing to do. But > I'm less clear on what the right thing to do is if you have made local > edits. Suggestions are appreciated. It could happen that a branch deleted the file, and added it back anew with whole new contents too. Thank you very much, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
