>--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 10:15:16PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
>> Your first case is really two merges, one requiring the user to supply
>> version 1.1.0.3 as the common contributor. The other is a single join
>> with version 1.1.0.2.
>>
>> You could also do this:
>>
>> version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
>>
>> And then resolve the inevitable conflicts resulting from the first bug-fix
>> merge. This is how CVS currently works.
>Two points: If I do that manually, I can easily avoid having to deal with
>a conflict by doing it in multiple stages.
>When I want to merge all the things in, I merge in the diff from 1.1 ->
>1.1.0.2. Then I apply the diff from 1.1.0.3 -> current. Because I know
>I've already applied 1.1.0.3.
>If you're going to automate this, this is how I would expect the automation
>to work.
If I understand you correctly, what you want is this:
Merge 1:
specification - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )
result - version 1.4 = 1.3 + ( 1.1.0.3 - 1.1.0.2 )
Merge 2:
specification - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1 )
result - version 1.5 = 1.4 + ( 1.1.0.5 - 1.1.0.3 ) + ( 1.1.0.2 - 1.1 )
Is this correct?
What about the case where the first merge is a partial, where the result
(version 1.5) contains only a subset of the deltas between 1.1.0.3 and
1.1.0.2? In this case, applying all of (1.1.0.5 - 1.1) to 1.4 and resolving
conflicts seems like the right thing to do.
>--- End of forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
