Re: Merging bug (wrong conflicts)

[Karl Tomlinson]

Jacob Burckhardt wrote:
> 
> I tested your cvs patch and it works great.  Please try to get it into
> the official cvs.  I will be glad to help with that.  For example, I
> would volunteer to help make your patch follow all of the rules in
> the cvs distribution file HACKING.
> 
> I have 8 test cases in which either cvs 1.11 or diff3 merges incorrectly.
> Seven of these cases were mailed by various people to the cvs mailing
> lists, and the 8th case was discovered by my co-worker but I have not
> reported it yet.
> 
> I manually verified that your patch merges correctly in 7 of these
> test cases.  But one of the cases was so hard to verify that I was not
> able to thoroughly verify it (but I am still pretty confident that
> your patch works even in this case).
> 
> Just in case I made a mistake in my manual verification, I also ran each
> test case through fmerge and fmerge agrees with your patched cvs on
> every test case.  For more info on the fmerge utility, see:
> 
> http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/fhist.html
> 
> So please let me know if you would like my help in making your patch
> meet the requirements in the file HACKING.
> 

Thanks very much for your feedback.
Pleased to hear that things are working.
It seems from Derek's post that the most urgent thing required to
get this into the official cvs is some test cases.
I would be grateful it if you could set up some of these.
I had thought that I'd complied fairly closely with the other
requirements in HACKING.
Please feel free to make modifications to coding style if it is not
consistent with cvs.  Extra documentation or clarification of existing
documentation would be very welcome.  I would appreciate being consulted
if you were considering any algorithm changes though.