On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Lluís Batlle i Rossell <[email protected]>wrote:
> In fact, I don't see why most VCS tend (somehow propose) to *not commit* > merge > conflicts before solving the conflicts. That makes the conflict solution > 'disappear' from the timeline. > > I think it's fine in committing the conflict marks, and then the solution > be an > explicit extra checkin. The wiki and tickets could work that way. > But in the wiki it can't work that way at the moment - they are committed as soon as you click save. If we were to do a proper merge at that point we would have no choice but to either NOT save the changes (returning to the editor with the conflict-marked version), or to save the conflicted version. The first option has other side effects (e.g. it would affect "fossil wiki commit pageName FILENAME"). In an automated process the second option would produce conflicts which probably largely go unnoticed. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
