Mark Phippard writes:
> Anyway, I think Peter has been pointing out that with the current merge
> algorithm you can easily have that problem anyway and his alternative
> approach potentially makes it better. So he is not saying the working copy
> is inconsistent in terms of corruption, just that the working copy could be
> logically inconsistent making it difficult to resolve conflicts.
>
Exactly, and whether to stop merging after a step with conflicts or not in
my proposed algorithm is a UI question. Do you prefer (revisions-wise)
consistency or do you want the merge to preceed as long as it can. As I
pointed out earlier, if you stop at conflicts, you could try to bring the
rest of the tree into a consistent state by cutting ranges at the end revision
of the current step. It is not clear to me whether this makes the
situation better or wose, though.
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 12 14:17:53 2007