[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS bashing?

From: Noel L Yap
Subject: Re: CVS bashing?
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:05:17 -0400

address@hidden on 2001.04.12 14:34:33
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Castle <address@hidden> writes:
> Mike> On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 06:06:22PM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
> >> - If a branch is merged multiple times to an ancestor, don't count
> >> the result of the prior merge as a conflict.  (Remember, CVS
> >> performs a
> Mike> As I said in an earlier post, this can be scripted around.
>can you give me an idea as to what such a script might look like?
>wouldn't there have to be some sort of 'database' which kept track of
>when/where the prior merges happened?

Yes, the script will need to keep track of the merge.  This info can be kept
within the CVS directory.

But back to the main topic of this thread.  The issue isn't whether there are
workarounds for CVS's limitations.  The issue /is/ CVS's limitations.  In any
three-way merge, the files supplied are two versions of the file and their
ancestor.  If, as was suggested in prior email, CVS is to allow use of an
external merging utility, CVS needs to supply the ancestor, which means that CVS
will need to know the ancestor version for each merge.


This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]