On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed explanation. It makes perfect sense now. > Certainly, a rather difficult task to get right algorithmically. >
I know. It is amazing to me that three way merge works as often as it does. :) > > Many thanks also to all previous respondents. > > *From:* Scott Robison <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:22 PM > *To:* Fossil SCM user's discussion <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict > > Thanks for this. It made it easy for me to visualize what is going on -- > and no debugging was necessary! :) > ... > I hope that explanation makes sense. > > Perhaps it would make sense to modify the "common ancestor" line in the > marked up merge file to call it the baseline? Or "BASELINE (often known as > COMMON ANCESTOR)"? Or something along those lines... > > -- > Scott Robison > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- Scott Robison
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
