I really do not want to make merge-conflict marks configurable. Aren't
there enough configuration options in Fossil already? Do we really need the
extra complication.
As of a check-in a did moments ago, the conflict marks now look like this:
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content first <<<<<<<
======= original content above; conflict below =============
>>>>>>> END MERGE CONFLICT: conflict last >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These marks do not contain the "version number" of the check-in or file for
the two versions of the text. But on the other hand, I do not find such
information particularly useful. Calling the two versions "original" and
"conflict" works much, much better for me. With that notation, I clearly
see what the code said before the merge, and what the merge wanted to change
it into. With version numbers, I have to mentally translate the version
numbers into "original" and "conflict", which involves extra work. I could
understand wanting version numbers if conflict marks were something that
might persist, but the idea is that conflicts are resolved quickly and never
persist.
Who has counter-arguments?
--
D. Richard Hipp
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
