Terminology for referring to branches during merges and conflicts

[John Arbash Meinel]

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

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Michael Gliwinski writes:
>  > On Monday 18 January 2010 15:20:32 Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  > > Michael Gliwinski writes:
>  > >  > BASE it could be something along the lines of '(NICK @ REV)' where
>  > >  > obviously REV is that common ancestor revision?
>  > >
>  > > Er, by definition it's on both branches.  Which nick?
>  > 
>  > I'd say the one of THIS branch (i.e. being merged to), same for REV.  Do you 
>  > think that could be confusing?
> 
> I don't think it would be particularly confusing, but it's not clear
> to me which would be more useful.  I suspect it would depend on your
> workflow, eg, if there had been any past merges and in which
> direction.

I would say... pick one and use it :) I see a few possible ways:

1) Always pick THIS
2) Always pick OTHER
3) Put both (THIS @ rev, OTHER @ rev)
4) Check and see if there is a simple revno for THIS or OTHER and use
that one (THIS @ 256 is preferred to OTHER @ 2.5.2). Falling back to one
of the previous selections if neither has a simple answer.

Interestingly enough, if both have a simple revno, then it has to be the
same revno.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAktUrmIACgkQJdeBCYSNAANwJACgitRlReeIBJBz0MWxY/5riAR3
DP0An3/3NewcXvwPO7kbVlWmyhH0mi0N
=lu1S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----