--- Paul Sander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >In the original scenario both developers were > working on different > >branches. > > The treatment of renames during merges should work > the same way > regardless of whether or not the two developers > share a branch. > A 3-way merge is a 3-way merge, and the point here > is that > directories should be treated in substantially the > same way as > files, with regard to merging changes to their > contents (i.e. > the mapping between version histories and the > location of a > version in the directory trees).
I agree that a 3-way merge is a 3-way merge, but directory versioning is an ideal I'm not sure CVS can achieve. (But the wheels are still churning on this one). Noel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
