On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:42:05AM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Rob> As someone else explained, star-merge can't handle this > Rob> situation; 'baz merge' can handle more complicated mesh > Rob> arrangments, though, perhaps it's worth a try? > > Sam> Also, Darcs handles this situation just fine. > > Andrew> So can tla, just not with star-merge. Why are you even > Andrew> posting? > > To help the original poster. You may not like it that I talk about > another RCS, but Darcs has a *simple* and working solution to what he > was trying to do. Each of tla, baz, darcs and many others have their > strengths and weaknesses. > > So what was the simple solution with tla that doesn't require a > change in the original poster architecture? (4 developpers all > fetching from each other repositories with no "central" branch)
replay, and half an inch of brain matter (duh). If you've only got four brances to play with then it's downright *easy*. star-merge is automation for a specific case. This is not that case. tla is not trapped into using only one method. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
