James Carlson wrote: > 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. > > Not quite... 'wx putback' puts the changes back into the parent gate. 'hg commit' is more like a 'wx/sccs delget'. To put changes back into the parent gate, the closer analogous command would be 'hg push'
cheers, steve -- stephen lau | stevel at opensolaris.org | www.whacked.net
