Use dominator for common ancestor? Weave merge?

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Hudec wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 12:50:14 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> No. It's correct.
> 
> However, the abovementioned page says about the dominator approach that 'it
> has it's own problem'. The only known, or at least known to any contributor
> to revctl.org, algorithm that can handle criss-cross merge sanely is weave
> merge.

AIUI, the 'it has it's own problem' issue is that you get more conflicts
than you should.

>>4. Should we make weave merge dump BASE as well as THIS and OTHER?
> 
> 
> The problem is it does not really have a base. Perhaps it could attempt to
> construct some kind of base annotation. It might be something like merge of
> all maximal common ancestors.

While the text merge does not use a base, the rest of the merge
(filenames, creation, executability, etc) does.  In my proposal, the
base would be the dominator.

Even though the base text isn't used by weave merge, I do find it useful
..er.. basis of comparison, when I'm trying to understand certain conflicts.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD6P0c0F+nu1YWqI0RApnsAJwLouf7Xj219ATGOkxauOoGdXIjMACeMsqY
bMkB8TGO4jiJqKBEgViXI94=
=BWhd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----