[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Partial update
From: |
Jan Hudec |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Partial update |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:10:37 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 15:32:18 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> Jan Hudec wrote:
>
> >>star-merge is superset of update.
>
> I used to think so, but it's not accurate when you look at trees that
> have deliberately diverged. Star-merge will throw away local changes
> that were rejected by the other branch, and merge the two as closely as
> possible.
>
> Update, on the other hand, will retain local changes, and apply any
> changes from the other tree since the last merge from other.
Well, I am not sure how update behave in presence of skipped
revisions. Star-merge <tree-version>-somepatch will not pull them in.
Replay will. Without skipped revisions, they should do the same (apply
diff between last applied patch and the requested one).
> This is why Fai supports "merge --update". It also supports "merge
> --update --diff3".
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron Bentley
> Director of Technology
> Panometrics, Inc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan 'Bulb' Hudec
<address@hidden>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature