Tyler writes:
>
> It turns out my test case was too simple, and this was a pathological
> case for the diff/patch step, because there wasn't any context. I'm
> still not sure why the text from 1.1.2.1 ends up in the conflict section
> in the merged result, but that's likely not a cvs problem.
Indeed, the short answer is, "because that's what diff3 does". For more
information about diff3, see the GNU Diffutils manual:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/diff.html>
-Larry Jones
Apparently I was misinformed. -- Calvin
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
