Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2007-05-30 14:56, Richard Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Kupfer wrote:
I spent a little time review Mercurial's open issues list
(http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/) [...]
I'm not (at a quick glance) seeing the issue we have with merges
picking the wrong ancestor in the case of backouts here, while
ancestor contents are identical (and thus the merge is non-toxic)
having to merge changes to files one never touched certainly
increases the chance of mismerge.
I think I've missed the relevant thread bits.
Can you try to write a minimal list of steps to reproduce this?
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/bts/issue522
Is the bug steve logged about this, I got the impression from that (and
other conversation) that the "Why" was known to at least mpm and brendan.
I'm not immediately clear on how I'd reproduce it intentionally.
-- Rich
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
