[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW: three-way merges / conflict markers
From: |
Alexander Deruwe |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW: three-way merges / conflict markers |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:32:43 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
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.
Alexander
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: NEW: three-way merges / conflict markers, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24