Richard Lowe writes: > James Carlson <james.d.carlson at Sun.COM> writes: > > > 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. > > Nope. > > Think about it. > > "hg commit" would be the equivalent of a wx delget. > "hg push" would be the equivalent of putback.
Doh! I read his "commit" and saw "push." I'll plead scm-disease from having used cvs earlier today, and leave it at that. ;-} -- 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
