On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:14:59AM +1100, Matthew Herrmann wrote:
> But can patch be run in such a way that it generates conflict markers
> instead of .rej files?
I don't think so.
> Or is diff3 the go here instead?
Yup. There's also "merge". That's part of the RCS distribution;
it's an intermediate layer between rcsmerge (which understands
RCS files, revisions, etc., and which is thus pretty irrelevent
in a CVS context) and diff3 (which does the real work). I don't
recall offhand what value merge adds to diff3 -- a quick glance
at its man page doesn't show me anything that diff3 isn't already
doing -- but there must be something I missed, and whatever it
is, it might be useful :-)
Of course, diff3 is what CVS uses internally. It might be
possible to structure your development process such that there's
a CVS branch that the patch will apply cleanly to, so you can
then use a CVS merge rather than messing with diff3 yourself.
That's the theory anyway. I looked into this a few months ago,
and found that I didn't have the time to script a solution that
would work in our specific situation.
In an open-source situation, with people submitting patches
against various releases, nightly snapshots, and/or random "cvs
update"s, I doubt this sort of approach has a chance. You'd end
up with *zillions* of little one-revision branches, one for each
submitted patch. Ick!
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
Just Say No to the "faceless cannonfodder" stereotype.
- http://www.ainurin.net/ (an Orc site)
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
