On 05 Nov 2013, at 14:13, Camillo Bruni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 2013-11-05, at 14:09, Benjamin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 05 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> it shouldn't be an MC issue. >>> the integrator is configured in "merge accepting upcoming changes". >>> So if you integrate and accept without you picking the right version, when >>> the automatic process run it blindly overrides the previous change. >> >> Then this is clearly a problem. >> >> It works in case fixes are made linearly one after the other. Which is far >> from being the case > > but we even proposed, several times, a remerged SLICE which would for > instance produce again a merge conflict. > So there is a strange problem around, which has something to do with MC. This is for sure another issue :) But I guess the value holder fix got lost because I - produce the slice A for value holder - produce the slice B for something else spec related - A got integrated - B got integrated. And of course in this scenario, if conflicts are not resolved, of if merge is not done properly, it tools back A Ben
