[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:04:57 -0700 (PDT) |
A:
>>> [mixed tag/commit versions vs. update]
T:
>> I understand you to be saying that `update' should better handle mixed
>> versions _or_ mixed versions should be prohibited.
A:
> Update in particular looks okay from the outside, using greedy revlibs.
> (I'm starting to suspect that it does the wrong thing if it has no
> access to the revisions in question.)
It pretends that the delta-patch version of `update' and the `replay
--list' version of update are interchangeable. But in fact, for mixed
versions (mix of tags and commit) they can give different results.
> Because of the tutorial's warning, I'm concerned that other operations
> will blow up, so I haven't used mixed versions.
`update', `star-merge', and a subset of `replay' are designed to "do
the right thing" for purely commit-based versions. If you're using
mixed tag/commit versions, you have to role-your-own merge strategy.
>> Prohibiting mixed versions is not an option. They are quite useful.
>> To choose an extreme example, in a version that exists only to be used
>> with `get', they are clearly handy.
> Okay, it sounds as if you actually want to support mixed
> versions. Obviously, we can't Do The Right Thing for cases with
> no obvious right thing.
Right. I wasn't too clear whether or not you recognized that,
regarding mixed versions, there is no obvious right thing.
> But there are levels of support, and a basic level of no
> crashes, readable errors, and no destructive behaviour seems
> like a reasonable target. Perhaps we're there already.
At worst, I don't think we're far off from there already.
It's funny -- different design issues get reraised with different
frequency. E.g., the structure of the namespace comes up every N
weeks. I'd guess that the interaction of `update' and other merge
commands with mixed versions is an "every 6 months" issue.
>> There is a bogosity I'm surprised you haven't brought up.
>> Currently, the result produced by `update'
>> _for_a_mixed_version_ is non-deterministic. It depends on the
>> state of your revision libraries.
> I think the disconnect is due to my use of greedy libraries. I
> always have or get the revisions in question, so it always does
> apply-delta. In other cases, it does replay, correct?
Correct.
>> _Perhaps_ that should be fixed.
> Well, if you're not going to forbid it, I think ensuring
> consistent behaviour makes sense.
Perhaps. There's a trade-off in that ensuring consistent behavior
means: (a) picking one of the two over the other (which one?) and (b)
making `update' slower in some cases.
Unless there's a compelling utility for resolving the ambiguity in the
meaning of `update' re mixed versions one way or the other, then the
only reason to do it is to add "training wheels" and I tend to
disfavor such changes.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Tom Lord, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Tom Lord, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Tom Lord, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/16
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Benoit Poulot-Cazajous, 2004/04/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Tom Lord, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Brian May, 2004/04/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Tom Lord, 2004/04/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Aaron Bentley, 2004/04/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: <<< conflict markers, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/15