[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Conflict marker detection debate

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: Conflict marker detection debate
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:46:42 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Monday, July 16, 2001 at 18:25:00 (-0400), Noel L Yap wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Conflict marker detection debate
> The problem is that it can't know with certainty whether it or the user 
> (whether
> manually through an editor or through some other tool) introduced the markers.

Noel if you'd try to think about the whole problem instead of little
itty bitty tiny bits then you wouldn't have this problem.

I.e. please try to think clearly before you post!

(but to answer your question: it's irrelevant -- merge conflict markers
must not ever be committed)

> Noone but you has complained about its current behaviour.

Well, obviouly you weren't on devel-cvs back when the current errant
behaviour was introduced....  Another quick scan of my archive suggests
Larry Jones might have been the only person who supported Kingdon.  I
didn't participate in the discussion then because it would have been
pointless to do so.  Suffice it to say there was disagreement and the
change was never reverted until consensus could be reached.

I also have to wonder that if Sander hadn't been busily stirring the
mud in this particular little corner that even you wouldn't have
objected to making CVS more robust at what conflict management it does.

>  You didn't even
> notice it until you were told about it.

Oh, I've noticed -- I just haven't bothered to say anything until it
became relevant.  I noticed back when the original error was
introduced and I'd planned to "fix" it but never got around to it.  The
timing is about right now though as I'll soon be venturing into another
big *BSD merge....

                                                        Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <address@hidden>     <address@hidden>
Planix, Inc. <address@hidden>;   Secrets of the Weird <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]