[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful
From: |
Timothy Brownawell |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful |
Date: |
Sun, 1 May 2005 15:43:58 -0500 |
On 5/1/05, Nathaniel Smith <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]
> Here's another pathological case for 3-way merge:
> A
> |
> B
> / \
> C D
> [...]
> So, clearly, picking A as an ancestor in the above graph is terrible.
>
> This leaves us in a bad situation, though. The possibility of
> criss-cross merge means that we are sometimes (or often) forced to
> choose ancestors that are far away, ...
Maybe there's a way to not have to choose distant ancestors after
criss-cross? I'm wondering what happens if you merge using *each* of
the least common ancestors, and then treat any differences in the
result as conflicts...
Tim
- 3-way merge considered harmful (was Re: [Monotone-devel] merge weirdness...), Nathaniel Smith, 2005/05/01
- [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful,
Timothy Brownawell <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker, 2005/05/02
- [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/05/02
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, K. Richard Pixley, 2005/05/02
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/05/02
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, K. Richard Pixley, 2005/05/03
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/05/03
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, K. Richard Pixley, 2005/05/04