[MERGE] Fix #306879 by mentioning the base revision id in the 'BASE' conflict marker lines

[Vincent Ladeuil]

>>>>> "aaron" == Aaron Bentley <aaron at aaronbentley.com> writes:

    aaron> Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
    >> Simple fix which add the revid of the base revision after the
    >> 'BASE-REVISION' marker.

    aaron> I'd rather not use revision-ids where we can avoid it.

I rather not use dotted revnos where I can avoid it until we know
how to calculate them without being O(history).

    aaron> Since we can use dotted revnos, I'd rather use them.

Are you saying that merge as already calculated dotted revnos ?

    aaron> Additionally, your fix is bogus because it will emit a
    aaron> revision id when the basis tree is a working tree with
    aaron> uncommitted changes (ie merge --uncommitted).

What is the revision base in that case ?

     Vincent