[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Thu, 1 Nov 2001 15:33:14 -0000
Belay that... Worked out the CVS (diff3) is doing a /much/ better job
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: 31 October 2001 20:08
Subject: Re: diff-iculties
In article <address@hidden>, Andy Baker wrote:
>I might be being more thick than usual today,
>but shouldn't the following two examples
>essentially produce the same result?...
> cvs up -jrev1 -jrev2 file
> cvs diff -rrev1 -rrev2 file >patch
> patch file <patch
The patch program does not handle three-way merging. It tries to patch
the diff hunks into the source text; if it cannot figure out where a
hunk goes, it writes it into a .rej (reject) file. Unlike CVS, patch
doesn't have access to the ancestral version.
However, the CVS merge operation you are doing *is* quite similar to the
actions of the GNU diff3 utility (when that is invoked in a certain way).
Also note that you should make a context diff to maximize the chances
of patch working properly; if the file being patched is different from
the patch base, it needs the context lines to guess where the changes
need to be applied.
>NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
>This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received
Then why is it going to a public mailing list and Usenet newsgroup? :)
Info-cvs mailing list
NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER:
This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you have received
this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete this
email from your system without copying or disseminating it or placing any
reliance upon its contents. We cannot accept liability for any breaches of
confidence arising through use of email. Any opinions expressed in this
email (including attachments) are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect our opinions. We will not accept responsibility for any commitments
made by our employees outside the scope of our business. We do not warrant
the accuracy or completeness of such information.