David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Colin Hall <[email protected]> writes: > >> On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:49:31PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > [...] >>> > What is your point? >>> >>> That automatically enforced indentation is not necessarily the best >>> choice for colloboration. >> >> Thanks, that's clear. Our experiences differ. >> >>> You don't have the choice to make indentation compromises while a >>> file is actively being worked on. Reverts and merges often fail. >> >> Yes, that's a feature. One only gets to check in code that meets the >> agreed standard. Compromise the indentation on your own branch. >> >> I attach a naive example. Comments welcome. > > You are using Emacs diff. That's not relevant. The tool to consult > about merge conflicts is git, and using git in a colloborative setting > was what the thread was supposed to be about.
Just as a minor anecdote: my recent issue 2584 work starts like the following in git: commit 76eeafd00669ac2b3eac1fa325a9a50a46bf8faf Author: David Kastrup <[email protected]> Date: Wed Jun 6 13:12:38 2012 +0200 Revert "Allow multiple identical slurs (issue 1967)" This reverts commit b986b38f14195f31e26b0a929c8ac23a8ecfc204. Conflicts: lily/slur-engraver.cc The "conflicts" line is a run of astyle that needed manual resolution. It was just a few lines in this case, but since you don't really have a three-way diff available for conflict resolution, it took half an hour to make sure that the state was corresponding to the original. When you have a case where not just a few lines but whole passages got reindented, doing that kind of work is decidedly unfunny. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
