Tim Woodall wrote: > a > /|\ > b b b <- patch to mailing list (three developers pick it up) > | | | > a | a' <- dev1 & 3 realize it is a bad patch and back it out > | | | dev1 backs out with patch -R dev 3 backs out manually[1] > |/|\| > b | a' <- dev1 & 3 now merge with 2 who's been on holiday
In that case, dev1 had a clean merge to b, while dev 3 had a clean merge to b but changed it to a, so when dev 3 merges with dev 1 at the end the result will be a. Nothing particularly strange about that case at all, the key is to realize that dev 3 had a clean merge to b and then changed it to a, so that counts as new development. > a > /|\ > b b b > \|/ > b <- everybody merges here to get a single head > /|\ > a | a' > |/|\| > a | a' Obviously a wins in that case. -Bram _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
