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

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> "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
> 
> 

If you did 'merge --uncommitted', I'm pretty sure BASE is the
workingtree.last_revision().

John
=:->

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

iEYEARECAAYFAklIA6MACgkQJdeBCYSNAAN8HgCeK9w5lIZXvVvVpbNTsnrUio5m
AE0AoLFHLQrh7xCBSG53A5IWCw+aUfg5
=ZQTP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----