"0 conflicts encountered."

[Martin Pool]

On  2 Dec 2005, Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > I like that too, but I would really like merge to report about what it

> > actually did.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of doing that, because it's often overwhelming.  With
> the rate stuff's been coming into bzr lately, data on successful merges
> fills up your terminal buffer.

As a compromise perhaps we could have something like

  3 revisions merged.
  8 files added, 5 merged, 3 conflicts.

or
  
  nothing new to merge.

> > 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.
> - - sometimes, weave merges are more confusing because each version
> deletes different lines, and you wind up with something that doesn't
> make much sense, where Merge3 gives a conflict and shows both sides.

I generally prefer the results from weave but I agree that getting the
three files is useful.  Perhaps we should all make an effort to do
merges using weaves first, and see if it would work well as a default.

-- 
Martin
-------------- 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/20051206/5474e1cb/attachment.pgp