[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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:11:10 -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:
    > [mixed tag/commit versions vs. update]

I understand you to be saying that `update' should better handle mixed
versions _or_ mixed versions should be prohibited.

Update in particular looks okay from the outside, using greedy revlibs. (I'm starting to suspect that it does the wrong thing if it has no access to the revisions in question.)

Because of the tutorial's warning, I'm concerned that other operations will blow up, so I haven't used mixed versions.

Prohibiting mixed versions is not an option.  They are quite useful.
To choose an extreme example, in a version that exists only to be used
with `get', they are clearly handy.

Okay, it sounds as if you actually want to support mixed versions. Obviously, we can't Do The Right Thing for cases with no obvious right thing. But there are levels of support, and a basic level of no crashes, readable errors, and no destructive behaviour seems like a reasonable target. Perhaps we're there already.

There is a bogosity I'm surprised you haven't brought up.   Currently,
the result produced by `update' _for_a_mixed_version_ is
non-deterministic.   It depends on the state of your revision

I think the disconnect is due to my use of greedy libraries. I always have or get the revisions in question, so it always does apply-delta. In other cases, it does replay, correct?

_Perhaps_ that should be fixed.

Well, if you're not going to forbid it, I think ensuring consistent behaviour makes sense.


reply via email to

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