[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Coflict marker detection proposal

From: Noel L Yap
Subject: Re: Coflict marker detection proposal
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:48:00 -0400

>"Probably" does not cut it.  The user has the final responsibility to
>decide what is acceptable to be committed, not CVS.  BTW, does anyone
>commit the raw results of a merge, before resolving conflicts and

I don't, but I can see this as being part of a process to help track merges.

>I don't believe that using the RCS "state" clause in a delta phrase is
>the right way to go.  Once a file has been been "Dead" and brought back,
>its "mergable-ness" is lost.  As additional RCS states are used (and
>there have been proposals to use them) then using it for this purpose
>becomes impossible.

Maybe there needs to be a state syntax so that files can be in several states
per revision?

>It's better to put it in a newphrase at the admin level.  That way, the
>condition is set once and requires no maintenance.  (Well, unless the
>type of the file's content is changed, but that introduces another flaw
>in CVS' design.)

I'd prefer if such info can be kept per revision.


This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

reply via email to

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