Re: Post 0.6.0 releases.

[Ben Pfaff]

John Darrington <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 09:05:10AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>      
>      Upon reflection, I think you must have meant merging in the other
>      direction: fixes from #1 merged into #2 and #3, and enhancements
>      from #2 merged into #3.  That makes sense.
>
> ???  Surely merging is a commutative operation?  One starts with two
> streams of development and end up with only one which is the union of
> the first two. A \cup B \equiv B \cup A  I don't see that it makes any
> sense to talk about the direction in which one merges.

The merge itself is commutative.  What one does with the result
is not.  If merge(A,B) replaces branch A, then I call that
"merging B into A", because A now includes B, and similarly if
merge(A,B) replaces B, then I would call that "merging A into B".
After either operation, either branch can continue development
along its own path.

I think that this is common terminology, but I see that it is not
universal.
-- 
"Sanity is not statistical."
--George Orwell