[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Zenaan Harkness <address@hidden>
> >From my memory of Bitkeeper's functionality, it errors out with a
> message to "pull first, then push again" or something... I could be
> mixing up scenarios though...
No such heuristic can prevent the problem, only make it a little less
likely and that only at the cost of hairing stuff up.
The OP and friends are making a specific infrastructure where the
extra hair is a win. Great! They (or someone) should build a tool
for that. That part is perfectly fine, from my perspective.
Meanwhile, star-merge should remain honest and simple-minded because,
as I've said, it actually is a *terrific* semantic for potential
arch-based infrastructures that happen to be different from the one
the OP is working on.
-t
- [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, David Allouche, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Tom Lord, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Tom Lord, 2004/09/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Matthieu Moy, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/09/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, David Allouche, 2004/09/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Star-merge Fatally Wounded, Jan Hudec, 2004/09/11