[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Symmetric Merge

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 06:19:37 +0100

On 22.03.2012 22:33, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> I'm confused. What additional checks would --reintegrate do that your
>> common or garden merge would skip? What kind of check do you think you
>> can safely skip without throwing all the effort you're putting into
>> fixing the merge algorithm out the window?
> The checks of target WC state mentioned above. Of course, the name "reintegrate" would then be less than appropriate, and we could consider a new name that makes more sense for that "I expect this to be a clean simple merge" kind of meaning. Is the use of an asymmetric-sounding option name for a now-symmetric functionality what was making you uncomfortable?

No, what bugs me is the assumption that the user gives a pig's ear about
whether the merge is "clean and simple" or whether the merge algorithm
has to figure out all sorts of cherry picks and criss-cross twists. I
very strongly suspect that the user doesn't care, she just wants merge
to do the right thing, every time. What do you want --reintegrate to do,
abort the merge if the user is wrong about "clean and simple?" Of course
not.

/Reporting/ the merge complexity is a different matter, but you can load
that onto the --verbose flag, or even always report, "Resolved %d cherry
picks and %d Gordian knots, of which %d required the Alexandrian solution."

-- Brane
Received on 2012-03-23 06:19:52 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.