[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators

From: Matthew Herrmann
Subject: Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:51:15 +1000

but, if i were to include this as a new argument to cvs update as an
argument (-3 i quite like), it wouldn't affect at all, since those
scripts would run exactly as before

of course, it would probably be a good idea to include some sanity checks

If I wrote a patch to include the functionality with a -3 option to CVS,
with following help:

Usage: cvs update [-APdflRp] [-k kopt] [-r rev|-D date] [-j rev]
    [-I ign] [-W spec] [files...]
        -k kopt Use RCS kopt -k option on checkout.
        -r rev  Update using specified revision/tag (is sticky).
        -D date Set date to update from (is sticky).
        -3      Include original text when marking conflicts.
        -j rev  Merge in changes made between current revision and rev.
        -I ign  More files to ignore (! to reset).

then people could turn it on just when they were using cvs update -j, but it
give too much info when people were just editing in a normal context (where
it is
overkill since the original source on both people's working copies are
usually close to

Would this be likely to be accepted into a new release? I mean, it doesn't
sound particularly risky? It's just like allowing users to pass through
parameters to the "cvs diff" command... it won't offend anyone, and i think
my last email gave some pretty good reasons to why it _should_ be included.

i'm d/l'ing the source now, i'll check out making a full patch that includes
all the frills like the new command-line parameter. if it's straightforward
enough, i'll check out updating (though this won't _need_ to be
updated if i patch my way, it just _should_ be)... biggest prob here is i'm
on a win2k box, linux is only on the server which makes things a bit


On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 11:33:18PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 09:04:37 (+1000), Matthew Herrmann
wrote: ]
> > Subject: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators
> The core patch is (including some extra unrelated fixes):

Without the unrelated fixes, it's a one-character change (this is
from 1.11.1p1, but I doubt it's changed significantly for
1.11.2).  Be warned though; this patch will make fail

reply via email to

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