[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers

From: Tom Lord
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:13:00 -0700 (PDT)

    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

    > Jan Hudec wrote:

    >>> But it would have the same effect as `tla star-merge --three-way', so it
    >>> would be a bit redundant.

    > > But star-merge is far less efficient for this.

    > > replay and update would equivalent with three-way merge. 

    > Update is a three-way merge.  It applies the delta between the tree 
    > revision and your current changes to the latest version in the archive, 
    > and you get the results in your project tree.

It's a merge with three trees, but not quite a 3-way merge.

E.g., it doesn't, strictly speaking, need to build the common ancestor
to achieve it's effect.   

It's basically just "redo my tree-local changes against a revision
that happens to have a common ancestor with my tree".

(But, again, an update-like (i.e., using those same 3 trees) 3-way
merge could be handy.)

My intuition is that it's high time to make a taxonomy of all possible
merge commands but I'm still a bit busy moving.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]