On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Thierry Goubier
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 28/09/2015 04:27, Ben Coman a écrit :
>>
>>
>> I have a vague recollection that the problem was a particular file
>> where data changed each commit and having the idea that this might be
>> solved by: each commit writing metadata to a different file e.g.
>> NNNN.metadata, and Monticello knows to pick up the highest numbered
>> metadata.
>
>
> Hum, I thought that as well, but in fact write the merge driver turned out
> as far better and simpler. Moreover, all type of data oriented files
> (ston, json, version) do not merge properly in git. So even Esteban saying
> he will use STON does not seems to solve the merge issue, unless he is
> planning something else. I do take in account we will have more metadata in
> the future, thanks to EPICEA, so we need a way to handle it.
>
> Merging is easy, you just need to hook into it.
>
> I believed also that we could do the merge ourselves and force git to commit
> the result, but discovered this was a bad idea. Imagine having to fire Pharo
> to merge a 250k OCaml project with 2k of st code in it :(
btw, would "notes" [1] be useful for attaching metadata?
"A typical use of notes is to supplement a commit message without
changing the commit itself."
Or is the metadata better inside the commit?
[1] http://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes
cheers -ben
