On Jan 20, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Arno Hautala wrote: > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 06:07, Russell Jones > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Might be the EOL character sequence differing. Have you tried applying the >> utilities in the port dos2unix? > > It's not an EOL issue, below is the output I receive when running the > sample sequence.
I tried using Unix-style EOLs with Windows Mercurial, and Windows-style EOLs with MacPorts Mercurial. It made no difference. Windows Mercurial still merges successfully, and MacPorts Mercurial still reports a merge conflict. > I haven't tested this using the packaged installation from Selenic to > narrow it down as a MacPorts vs Mac bug, but I can say that the Ubuntu > distribution completes a successful merge. Interestingly, my brother tells me the FreeBSD ports collection Mercurial *does* exhibit the same problem with the merge conflict. Is there some connection between the FreeBSD ports collection Mercurial and MacPorts Mercurial? By the way, I read further in _Mercurial: The Definitive Guide_, and I came across another example where the book shows a successful automatic merge and I get a merge conflict. I'll try to find that example again. Regards, Russell Hanneken [email protected] _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
