[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:18:32 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Tom Lord wrote:

    > From: Aaron Bentley <address@hidden>

    > Update is a three-way merge.

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 you need to build the common ancestor to determine what "my tree-local changes" are. Yes, update's less powerful than star-merge, but for the default version, the only difference between star-merge and update is which way the conflicts point.

apply the difference between patch-2 and patch-3 to tree.

apply the difference between patch-2 and tree to patch-3.

They're both three-way merges, but star-merge handles more cases. Or are you drawing a distinction that the three trees don't all exist at the same time with update?

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

Personally, I find star-merge makes a fine update, so I'm not sure what it'd be handy for.


reply via email to

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