begin quoting Christian Seberino as of Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:35:23PM -0700: > > On Thu, August 16, 2007 11:12 am, Stewart Stremler wrote: > > >> Problem solved!?!? > > > > Not really... it's *more* tedious and labor-intensive to do it that way. > > > >> No more magic and mystery! > > > > Just tedium. > > I agree that it is tedious and so you wouldn't want to do it for large > patches but for small groups and small patches it should do nicely.
I thought that SVN copied CVS's merge mechanism. That's better than the manual process, even if it's not nearly as good as a three-way merge. Why does the "normal" way not suffice? > People often like simple procedures they understand without a lot of > mystery and fluff (e.g. CLI vs. GUI for many sysadmin tasks). Yes. Three-way merges are simple... My version, your version, the common ancestor version. > I'm willing to put up with a little tedium to have complete understanding > of what is going on w/o much brain power needed. Oh, yes, fully automated merges are dangerous. But tedium is the mother of mistakes. -- Side-by-side diff/merge tools are almost as useful as three-way merge tools. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
