[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful
From: |
Bruce Stephens |
Subject: |
[Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful |
Date: |
Sun, 01 May 2005 22:53:22 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Timothy Brownawell <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
> 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...
That feels a bit hacky. I'd guess the clean approach is to adopt a
darcs approach, where the idea is to take the union of the patches in
the ancestors.
Codeville is alleged to have a better solution to this than 3-way
merge, and the rather vague descriptions I've read seem to suggest
they've got something novel. It's a shame the descriptions aren't
better.
- 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, 2005/05/01
- [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful,
Bruce Stephens <=
- [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
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: 3-way merge considered harmful, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/05/04