> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net]
> Sent: 15 February 2002 18:29
[...]
> > The merging rules are quite simple (assume that changes are on
> > 'synchronized' locations in the following):
> >
> > - The parts where there are no changes between OLDER, YOURS and
> > MINE are copied verbatim.
> >
> > - If there is a change between OLDER and YOURS, but not between
> > OLDER and MINE, the change is non conflicting and goes in (the
> > change made between OLDER and YOURS that is).
> >
> > - If there is a change between OLDER and MINE, but not between
> > OLDER and YOURS, the change is non conflicting and goes in (the
> > change made between OLDER and MINE that is).
> >
> > - If there is a change between OLDER and YOURS _and_ the exact same
> > change is present between OLDER and MINE, the change will go
> > in (since it is non conflicting)
> >
> > - If there is a change between OLDER and YOURS and there is a
> > different change between OLDER and MINE, we have a conflicting
> > change that will have to be resolved by the user (this is where
> > conflict markers come in).
>
> Right, that all makes sense, but the thing is, none of it requires
> that OLDER be a common ancestor of MINE and YOURS. The same set of
> rules works equally well if OLDER is an ancestor of YOURS, and a
> sibling/cousin of MINE.
>
> ???
OLDER == BASELINE
YOURS == REPOS
MINE == WORKING COPY
Does it make sense now? We do have access to all three files.
> -K
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:08 2006