Dean Roehrich writes: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:09:36AM -0500, Richard Lowe wrote: > > I asked this at the time, and while one person did say something much > > like the above, everyone else's view was that it was the common term > > in use. I'd say if you feel strongly enough that it should be > > changed, come up with alternate but equally understandable/common > > wording and file a bug. > > In patch(1) terms they're called "rejected hunks", or simply "rejects".
I don't think we're talking about the same things. "Merge turds," in gatekeeper parlance, are instances where the user has done some intermediate merge step in his workspace, but then hasn't cleaned up after himself by collapsing the SCCS delta or hg changeset. If the user puts back the file, there are no unmerged sections in the body of the file (which are what you'd expect if there were any "rejected hunks"), but the gate's revision history will show swilly entries where the user was hacking around in his own workspace. Over time, this makes the gate's history illegible. > How about another cdm question: What will be the equivalent of "wx putback" > for internal ON/NV developers? Or is this simply a naked "hg commit"? Yep. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
