[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators

From: Greg A. Woods
Subject: Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:31:13 -0400 (EDT)

[ On Saturday, June 22, 2002 at 13:51:15 (+1000), Matthew Herrmann wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators
> 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

I think the only proper way to display merge conflicts is with '-AT'.  I
think '-E' is bogus and misleading in almost all cases.

(Note that '-A' doesn't show unnecessary duplication -- it only shows
old and new if that's all that's necessary.)

Further I think that if you expect '-A' format output then you don't
ever want to even accidentally not produce it.  Undoing and re-doing
merges can be an extremely painful, and almost impossible, process.

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

Strictly speaking the sanity checks would always be necessary, and they
get one heck of a lot more complex if you make this a command-line
option because now you need to add new checks instead of just "fixing"
existing checks and if you've looked at I'm sure you'll agree
that doing such is not a pretty job.

I do have a working for my version of CVS, but it's somewhat
dated.....  :-)

(btw, -3 would be a less than ideal choice for an option letter.  Option
letters that are digits have been shown to confuse people, and also
they're not strictly allowed by the POSIX command-line conventions.)

                                                                Greg A. Woods

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

reply via email to

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