I also agree that words:
"original content"
and
"conflict"
are very clear for a person who understands very well the merge
algorithm. However, they might be not so clear for a casual user.
People would understand better something like:
"local checkout"
"files from repository"
or somethi
On Dec 16, 2010, at 16:11 , Richard Hipp wrote:
> I really do not want to make merge-conflict marks configurable. Aren't
> there enough configuration options in Fossil already? Do we really need the
> extra complication.
I hope not.
>
> As of a check-in a did moments ago, the conflict marks
I really do not want to make merge-conflict marks configurable. Aren't
there enough configuration options in Fossil already? Do we really need the
extra complication.
As of a check-in a did moments ago, the conflict marks now look like this:
<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: original content fi
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:17:29 +
fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org wrote:
> I'm inclined to go with the shorter one-line conflict marks. Other
> thoughts from the user community?
Love the idea to add context to the conflict lines. How about a
compromise solution? Like:
0
1
2
3
<<<
On Dec 15, 2010, at 22:10 , Joshua Paine wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 04:00 PM, Zach Todd wrote:
>> I have updated the merge conflict code as well as config setup to
>> allow for configurable notation.
>
>> Doesn't this call for configurable notation? ;)
>> Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski
>
> Ma
...@letterblock.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:10 PM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Merge conflict notation
On 12/15/2010 04:00 PM, Zach Todd wrote:
> I have updated the merge conflict code as well as config setup to
> allow for configurable no
On 12/15/2010 04:00 PM, Zach Todd wrote:
> I have updated the merge conflict code as well as config setup to
> allow for configurable notation.
> Doesn't this call for configurable notation? ;)
> Kind regards, Remigiusz Modrzejewski
Maybe I missed it, but I sure thought Remigiusz was joking.
--
ompute the edits that occur from pPivot => pV1 (into aC1)
** and pPivot => pV2 (into aC2). Each of the aC1 and aC2 arrays is
@@ -258,13 +275,13 @@
nConflict++;
while( !ends_at_CPY(&aC1[i1], sz) || !ends_at_CPY(&aC2[i2], sz) ){
sz++;
}
DEBUG( printf("C
On Dec 15, 2010, at 16:30 , Wilson, Ronald wrote:
> Sometimes I wish the conflict notation was something like:
>
> #error BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT
>
> Instead of
>
> <<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT
>
> But I know that would only work in C/C++/C#. I just wish there was some way
> that the compiler
, 2010 10:17 AM
To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Merge conflict notation
Why do not compact the 3 lines into one line?
RR
2010/12/15 Zach Todd :
> I have updated some of the merge conflict code to provide a little more
> detail. Below is an example o
oun...@lists.fossil-scm.org [mailto:fossil-users-
> boun...@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Ribó
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:18 AM
> To: fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Merge conflict notation
>
> Why do not compact the 3 lines into one line?
Why do not compact the 3 lines into one line?
RR
2010/12/15 Zach Todd :
> I have updated some of the merge conflict code to provide a little more
> detail. Below is an example of this update in action.
>
> 0
> 1
> 2
> 3
> <<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT
> <<< 89aba65d8683d417a305cc784afb82489
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Zach Todd wrote:
> I have updated some of the merge conflict code to provide a little more
> detail.
Zach: Did you see http://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/ci/76ae862ec9 from
yesterday? The changes there do not provide quite as much information as
yours do (in tha
I have updated some of the merge conflict code to provide a little more detail.
Below is an example of this update in action.
0
1
2
3
<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT
<<< 89aba65d8683d417a305cc784afb82489617c665
<<< initial checkin
444
<<< 8715f5bdc8de7d01fa9
14 matches
Mail list logo
