On Wed, December 19, 2007 7:42 am, David Brown wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 02:29:10AM -0800, SJS wrote: > >>Apparently, mercurial doesn't do merges. >> >>(I was poking around on the mercurial webpages today and discovered >> this.) > > I'm curious where you got this, since it is blatantly false. Mercurial > does tree-combining merges in a similar manner to git, which means it > tends > to choose a much better common ancestor than CVS, or Subversion would. > Well, subversion can choose a good common ancestor, since it relies on the > user to tell it what that common ancestor is. > > Now, yes, it calls to an external program 'merge' to do the actual merge > work, but all of them will either do that, or just incorporate the code > out > of merge into themselves. Most can be configured, because you need very > different tools to merge some kinds of things (imagine bitmap images). > > The "hard" part of merging isn't the 3-way merge, but figuring out what > the > multiple versions are. It's not that 3-way merging isn't hard, but there > have been good solutions for a long time. Figuring out what files to give > it is what requires the metadata. > > Dave >
OK, who'm I gonna believe here, SJS or Dave? ;-) -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
