On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Kai Willadsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3 April 2013 06:06, Angel Ezquerra <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Kai Willadsen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 3 April 2013 02:01, Keegan Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I exceeded my Dropbox public folder limits, the new home for them is here: >>>> https://meld-installer.googlecode.com/files/meld-0.0.0.0.exe >>>> https://meld-installer.googlecode.com/files/meld-0.0.0.0.zip >>>> I'll keep these around permanently and periodically update them with the >>>> latest from Git master. I include the .git directory, so you can do a git >>>> pull on the meld directory at any time if you want to update it yourself. >>>> >>>> This seems like an important issue to get fixed. Do you think it'd be >>>> appropriate to push out another release sooner rather than later? >>> >>> Yeah, could do. I'll see if I can find time this weekend for it. For >>> that to happen, I'd appreciate any testing that people might want to >>> throw at current git. Several Windows-related fixes went in over the >>> weekend for Git actions, temp files and executable locating, and it >>> would be nice if they worked for someone other than me. >>> >>> cheers, >>> Kai >> >> There is a serious issue on Windows that we've been discussing on the >> mercurial-devel mailing list, which is that meld returns 0 even if you >> do not save the merge output (i.e. if the merge fails). This makes >> mercurial believe that the merge was successful when it isn't. >> >> For now we are thinking of enabling mercurial's "checkchanged" option >> for meld, which means that mercurial will check if the merge output >> changed once meld exits, and ask the user if the merge failed if it >> did not. That is a band-aid though, so improvements on that area would >> be really great. >> >> I think Keegan is aware of that issue. Something related to portable python? > > Not a portable python problem I think. We don't ever (to my > recollection) change return values. I'm not sure that it makes sense > to do so either, since there's no way to indicate multiple returns > (i.e., tabs 1 and 3 were saved but tab 2 wasn't). I realise that > launching multiple merges isn't a common case, but... it just feels > wrong to me. > > Could you explain why you consider the checkchanged option to be a band-aid? > > cheers, > Kai
It is a band-aid because we only use that option when the tool is not able to tell us that the merge was successful. Most merge tools do tell us when a merge succeeded by returning a 0 exit code, and when the merge fails with a non zero exit code. This allows us to do the merge pretty much automatically. If the merge tool does not return a non zero exit code when the merge is aborted by the user then we can only guess, and we do so by checking if the merge file contents changed, which is not very accurate. If they did not change we must ask the user to confirm that the merge was successful, which adds an additional prompt. So as you see it is less than ideal. One of the main mercurial devs, while discussing the need to use the checkchanged setting said "That's a very serious issue", and I agree with him. BTW, if I understood you correctly, this is non windows specific, right? I think that meld could handle the situation that you mention by returning 0 if the user saves any of the files, and non zero otherwise. Another option would be to only return 0 if the output file (as specified with the -o parameter) is saved. What do you think? Cheers, Angel _______________________________________________ meld-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/meld-list
