On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:57:06AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > 2011/3/3 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <virik...@gmail.com> > > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:39:11AM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: > > > 2011/3/3 Lluís Batlle i Rossell <virik...@gmail.com> > > > > This could have worked, if the first merge of the end of January did > > not > > > > have > > > > any rename. It had renames, and due to this, the last merge attempt > > > > complained > > > > about this like this: > > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file1 > > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file2 > > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file3 > > > > WARNING - no common ancestor: file4 > > > > .... > > > > > > Without --baseline, merge uses the nearest common ancestor, as determined by > the same algorithm used for test-find-pivot. The test-find-pivot command is > (as its name suggests) a test procedure used to test and debug the algorithm > for finding the nearest common ancestor. Ah, the test-shortest-path may be for the bisect. I mixed things.
> So you are saying that test-find-pivot is not finding the ancestor you think > it ought to be finding? Maybe the problem is in the handling of renames, then, and I mixed all with the 'shortest-path' algorithm, which may have played no role. Sorry for this noise. So no wonder that with --baseline or without it, it behaves the same. "test-find-pivot" finds properly the ancestor, but I don't understand why it thinks there is no common ancestor for those files. A trunk c4 | <= At this point we're running "fossil merge trunk", saying those WARNINGS | ... | | | | c3 | <= the rename got into the branch A through "fossil merge trunk" \ | |\ | | \__c3 <= Common ancestor found by test-find-pivot | | | | | | | c2 <= rename of files \ | \ | \ | \_c1 Do you see what may be going wronG? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
