On Dec 16, 2010, at 16:11 , Richard Hipp wrote: > 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.
I hope not. > > 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. You mean the original version from the trunk that my edits conflicted with? Things may not be so clear. I would at least try to fit into there some word suggesting that the original is "YOUR" version. > 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. Good point. Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
