[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] star-merge vs apply-delta (was: [MERGE REQUEST: lor

From: Robert Collins
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] star-merge vs apply-delta (was: [MERGE REQUEST: lord] documentation and help enhancements)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 19:51:02 +1000

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 09:33, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:30:33PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > > A while ago I wanted to be able to specify the common ancestor REVISION to
> > > star-merge, but then realized that apply-delta would do the same job.
> > 
> > apply-delta could only do the same job if you're not using --three-way.
> > 
> >         Stefan "Using --three-way all the way"
> Is there any reason why more commands couldn't use it?  At least update and
> apply delta would seem to have info about three versions, and it would be
> handy to have a more primitive version of --three-way (without star-merge's
> auto-magic).
> Given your championing of it, I've been giving --three-way a try, and indeed
> it's very handy -- my conflicts are reduced to almost nothing (though some of
> the remaining conflicts are ... weird), with only changelogs stubbornly
> resisting, and I have a shell script to handle those.

AIUI three-way actually does two things to the patch behaviour
*) turns on --forward
*) turns on the <<<, ===, >>> style markers

IMO one should have to specify both three way and forward to have this
occur - as three way merge markers are useful without the --forward

Note that --skip-present would also reduce your conflicts - and I have
plans to address it's weakness (that it might not merge something you
want) in the not-too-distant future.

GPG key available at: <>.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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