On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:11:52AM +0100, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > 2013/7/12 Stephan Beal <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Jan Nijtmans wrote: > >> Well, just try out the "merge-integrate" branch. I would say > >> the glass is full again. ;-) > > > > Indeed it is! i like what you've done :) > > I made one additional change: adding states > UPDATED_BY_INTEGR and ADDED_BY_INTEGR > (comparable to their XXX_BY_MERGE equivalent) > in "fossil (status|changes|ls -v)" > > See: > <http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/info/2015bbd55d> > > Still no objections, anyone? I think it's ready to be > integrated into trunk (using "merge --integrate", > of course), but another round of evaluation never hurts!
Hello all, I'll try to add some feedback. :) Why INTEGR, and not INTEGRATE? There is also case -1, -2, -4. Why not -3? About the code starting at line 1693, it looks to me like it runs in any case. Does this change only add a new "--integrate", or it also changes the behaviour of usual merges? Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
