"0 conflicts encountered."

[Jan Hudec]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 22:14:46 +0100, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> writes:
> 
> >> And when are we thinking to switch to --merge-type=weave?
> >
> > I'm not sure.  I actually prefer three-way diffs, most of the time
> > - they give you a BASE file, so you can see what changes OTHER made.
> 
> AAUI, --merge-type does a 3-way merge at the file granularity (file
> names and meta-information), and a weave merge for file content. So,
> it shouldn't be difficult to put a file.BASE in the tree in case of
> conflict, right? (but I guess getting the ancestor in the conflict
> markers would be meaningless)

I am not really sure about it, but shouldn't the weave merge be equivalent to
3-way merge if the base is well defined*? In that case, the logic could be:
Do 3-way merge if the ancestor is well defined, weave-merge otherwise.

* 3-way merge base is well defined if there is exactly one most recent common
  ancestor.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20051202/50693916/attachment.pgp