Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW: three-way merges / conflict markers

[Jan Hudec]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:32:43 +0200, Alexander Deruwe wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 10:45:32AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> > arch has traditionally indicated conflicts by generating .rej files
> > containing hunks that `patch(1)' rejects.
> > 
> > Sometimes people ask, instead, to have diff3 or CVS style conflict
> > markers left in the file being patched.   Like:
> > 
> >     <<<<<<< TREE
> >         this is what
> >         you had in your tree
> >         =======
> >     this is what the merged-from
> >         revision had instead
> >         >>>>>>> MERGED-FROM
> > 
> > 
> > With the head revision of tla--devo--1.1, you can get that style of
> > merge with:
> > 
> >     % tla star-merge -t  MERGED-FROM-REV
> > 
> > or 
> > 
> >     % tla star-merge --three-way  MERGED-FROM-REV
> > 
> > 
> > It's probably worth pointing out that `star-merge', especially with
> > the `-t' option, is an alternative to both `update' and `replay' for
> > catching up to changes in your default tree version.  In other words,
> > there isn't a real reason to add a `-t' option to `update' or `replay'
> > -- just use `star-merge' instead.  (On the other hand, I wouldn't
> > reject patches that turn `update -t' and `replay -t' into a call to
> > `star-merge'.)
> 
> Any chance of getting a -t option in 'tla redo'?  The conflict markers
> are much easier to work with, and I just found myself wishing 'redo'
> would support them as well.

But you need wiggle for that...

Recall that you don't have the full text of old and new files for the
patch; just the diff.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec 
<address@hidden>