In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 1 May 2005 00:29:48 -0700, Nathaniel
Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
njs Here's another pathological case for 3-way merge:
njsA
njs|
njsB
njs / \
njs C D
njs Suppose that a file was added on the A-B edge, and then removed again
njs in B-C,
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:31:59PM +0200, Henrik Holmboe wrote:
Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
It's true this a little confusing, though. Easiest solution: add a
--do-it command-specific-option to drop/rename, which tells them to
actually delete or rename the file in
I think this is all that's necessary. (The line that modifies
self.base_command looks like it was a mistake anyway.)
--- monotone.py
+++ monotone.py
@@ -113,9 +113,9 @@
def ancestry(self, id, limit=0):
rv = []
entry = None
- command =
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
To expand: I'll assume everyone knows about the criss-cross merge
case, which forces us to choose more distant ancestors in some cases,
or else risk silently corrupting code.
I don't. Is there a reference?
(This problem seems specific to the semantics of rename; there
The most obvious solution would really be to have those file
movements codified during a merge into a file similar to MT/work,
and which can suffer from conflicts if needed. That file would be the
first to have to be resolved, and the results from it would be applied
immediately in some way,
Joel Rosdahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bruce Stephens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Propagate seems to have three cases. If you're propagating from
branch src to dst, then either:
[...]
2. dst is an ancestor of src, in which case there's no merging to
be done: just add src to the dst
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:18:09PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Trying to code tree rearrangement conflicts as textual conflicts
doesn't work; I spent a few weeks trying, when we were trying to
figure out how to do tree rearrangement in the first place. You can
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 01:57:51PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
To expand: I'll assume everyone knows about the criss-cross merge
case, which forces us to choose more distant ancestors in some cases,
or else risk silently corrupting code.
I don't. Is there a
* Richard Levitte:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 1 May 2005 00:29:48 -0700, Nathaniel
Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
njs Here's another pathological case for 3-way merge:
njsA
njs|
njsB
njs / \
njs C D
njs Suppose that a file was added on the A-B edge, and then
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 01:21:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I think Nathaniel wanted to say that there is an implied conflict
which 3-way merge cannot detect, not that one choice is better than
the other. The argument that there is a hidden conflict which should
be flagged as such is
10 matches
Mail list logo
