Non-expected conflict

[Jan Hudec]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 13:08:10 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Jan Hudec wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 15:14:29 -0300, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
> > 
> > I'd like to add that none of monotone, git, mercurial, subversion or
> > svk, nor any commercial versioning tool I've ever heard of, would do
> > any better.
> 
> BitKeeper would.  Codeville would.  Darcs should, but last I heard,
> criss-cross gave it indigestion.

Ok. I never managet to get through the marketing babble to any technical
information about BitKeeper, so maybe it uses a better algorithm than
3-way merge.

Codeville certainly would -- I did not say it won't, but last time I
looked it was not exactly well documented and certainly wasn't as easy
to use as bzr.

Darcs merging algorithm is hard to analyze, but I guess it would spend a
*lot* of time sorting the patches, after which it would produce a
relatively reasonable merge.

> > Some of them, eg. monotone, would choose the dominator
> > revision, which would give more, but less confusing, conflicts.
> 
> You'd still get Gustavo's changes conflicting with Gustavo's later
> changes, so I think they'd be pretty confusing.

... so it wouln't be a big improvement, hm.

> >>[...]
> >>
> >>Understood. Thanks for explaining.
> > 
> > 
> > We should however try to think about what could be useful for
> > understanding conflicts when they happen. Maybe some kind of annotation
> > or synthetic base.
> 
> You mean emitting a synthetic BASE for weave merge?

Yes. Though, thinking about it, I can't really come up with any
reasonable definition of it.

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060324/95aee160/attachment.pgp