[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Documentation suggested to clearer state restrictions to merging

From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: Documentation suggested to clearer state restrictions to merging removed files
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:56:48 -0500

"Cameron, Steve" wrote:

> Derek Price wrote:
>          [...]
> > Yes you can - 4 way merges aren't necessary.  What you're actually
> > assuming is
> > that all a merge cares about is the differences between the greatest
> > common
> > ancester (gca) of newtag and the destination.  In the simple backout case
> > this
> > simplifies to newtag:
>         [...brain-hurting text omitted...]
> > All the other cases I could come up with simplify into one of the above.
> >
> > Hmmm?
>         [smc]  Um, yeah, what he said, "Hmmm."  Oww.  My brain hurts.
>         I'll have to think about htat one some, but it seems to make sense.

Looks like 4 out of 5 cases work.  I rexamined it and I think my premise was
slightly off so the case where the destination branch branches off of 'o's
branch is not exact.  I'm going through the math again to try and get it right
so I can check in a fix.  I'll check in a doc containing the revised
explanation with the fix.  I'll cc bug-cvs if there's interest.

Anyway, I needed to take a break from complex algorithms and math before
I fell asleep, so I checked in the original manual mod that started this
thread since no one had opined corrections in the last week or so.


Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
And what if you track down these men and kill them?  What if you murdered all
of us?  From every corner of Europe hundreds, thousands, would rise to take our

                - Paul Henreid as Victor Laszlo, _Casablanca_

reply via email to

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