This is normal because ancestry cross over repository. I think that there is something really strange. EIther you get a truly distributed system or you get a local. With MC you get a distributed which can be brittle (even if I understand well the problem ancestry is solving). I think that a pessimistic merge (more than just going one by one on the changes would help).
Stef On Mar 24, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > Stef and Lukas, > > The other situation that I have seen these types of errors is when the > package that I am merging into(?) does not have the repository where the > common ancestor mcz file is located. > > For example if I have Seaside.gemstone-dkh.500 with > http://seaside.gemstone.com/ss/seaside in it's repository group. When I > attempt to merge Seaside.lr.505 in http://www.squeaksource.com/seaside I get > an error. > > If I add http://www.squeaksource.com/seaside to the repository group for > Seaside.gemstone-dkh.500 and then try the merge, it works.. > > Does this help or have I missed something along the way:) > > Dale > ----- "Stéphane Ducasse" <[email protected]> wrote: > > | On Mar 24, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: > | > | >> what is strange is that when I merge the latest loaded version I > | got the normal "no changes" > | >> and I could merge without having to add a new repository. > | > > | > Sure, because in this situation the common ancestor is the version > | you > | > load (so it can always be found). And the delta between the working > | > copy and the version you merge is empty, so you have no changes. > | > | You did not get me right > | > | scenario 1: I click on the slice press merge get an error ancestor > | not found > | scenario 2: I click on the **latest working copy version* that led to > | the error of scenario and do merge I get no changes of course > | + scenario 1 and it merges without the error of scenario 1 (it means > | that he suddenly magically found the ancestry) > | > | for me there is a bug. Because between scenario 1 and 2 there is no > | difference since this is exactly the same version that I have > | as working copy. > | > | > > | >> I think that in squeak they cut the problem (if you do not have the > | history what do you do). > | >> You should still be able to merge. > | > > | > I don't think they do anything different? If the ancestor version > | is > | > missing you simply cannot do a meaningful merge. It is as simple as > | > that. > | > | Yes i see what you mean. You cannot use the ancestry to do a clever > | merge. What I meant is that we should be able to see what changed > | based on the latest loaded version (no need to have the complete > | ancestor since it is broken). > | > | Because often using the latest working copy and having the diff is > | only what I need. Is whatI'm sayign make sense? > | > | > | _______________________________________________ > | Pharo-project mailing list > | [email protected] > | http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
