Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-27 Thread Scott Robison
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 1:40 AM, wrote: > I’ve been reading much of this discussion so far, and although it has > focused primarily on the possibility of a deleted file not merging in as > one may have expected, I have to say that my report was not about that. > > What I reported

Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-27 Thread tonyp
I’ve been reading much of this discussion so far, and although it has focused primarily on the possibility of a deleted file not merging in as one may have expected, I have to say that my report was not about that. What I reported had to do with the addition of new files in trunk that were

Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-27 Thread Scott Robison
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Steve Stefanovich wrote: > >>‎ Yes, we discussed this one the list before. The fossil should at > >> least warn about it, or more accurately raise a conflict, because > >> that's what it really is. It's a bug. > > > I can see a desire to raise a

Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-27 Thread Steve Stefanovich
>>‎ Yes, we discussed this one the list before. The fossil should at >> least warn about it, or more accurately raise a conflict, because >> that's what it really is. It's a bug. > I can see a desire to raise a merge conflict, but I don't think it > is a bug. Isn't it reasonable to say "removing

Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-25 Thread Steve Stefanovich
‎Yes, we discussed this one the list before. The fossil should at least warn about it, or more accurately raise a conflict, because that's what it really is. It's a bug. Since we've got Richard's attention to this thread, I'd point him to related bugs that were reported‎ before. Maybe these

Re: [fossil-users] MERGE problem (with renames/deletes)

2015-09-25 Thread Scott Robison
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Steve Stefanovich wrote: > ‎Yes, we discussed this one the list before. The fossil should at least > warn about it, or more accurately raise a conflict, because that's what it > really is. It's a bug. > I can see a desire to raise a merge conflict,