RE: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators

[Matthew Herrmann]

Hi Greg,

I just looked at sanity.sh (it's kind of scary when you mistake the test
cases for code -- it looks like the obfuscated C competition on steroids!)
and the CVS code itself, and there's a fair bit of disruption needed to get
it a command-line parameter to the RCS_Merge command. i think i'll just take
your suggestion, and patch our server with the -AT and be done with it.
Thanks for the info about the no duplication, that means then that conflict
markers will work well for both multi-developer-style merges and
update-from-bugfix merges. I'll need to let the guys know here how the new
system works but this will sure save me some headaches I can assure you!

Many thanks,
Matthew

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 03:31
To: Matthew Herrmann
Cc: CVS Mailing List
Subject: Re: new feature suggestion: 3-way conflict indicators


[ 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 sanity.sh 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.)

...