Committing conflicts

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Stefan Monnier wrote:
|> We don't generally auto-commit merges for a few reasons.  One is that
|> users may want to check the merge was semantically correct as well as
|> having no technical conflicts, eg by looking at the diff or running
|> some tests.  Another is that there is some potential for user
|> confusion if you sometimes have to explicitly commit and sometimes
|> not.
|
| Is there a way to commit a tree that has conflicts?
| This may not be often needed, but when a large merge needs to be done
| collaboratively by various people, it can come in very handy.
|
|
|         Stefan

You can use 'bzr resolve --all' and pretend that there aren't any conflicts and
commit. The files will still have '<<<<<, =====, >>>>>' markers in them, but
there won't be anything that actually claims the files are conflicted. (You will
also remove the .THIS, .OTHER, and .BASE files.)

We don't have a way of recording a specific conflict list for a given commit. It
certainly is theoretically possible, just hasn't been something requested.
(Since we don't auto-commit merges, there hasn't been a need.)

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkhAYjMACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMXnwCgppWxayrwt+I1HhF9mcO/qB28
+5IAoM3e2gslypOTOrtA59YxuHXP9Hx9
=COPw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----