[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fossil-users
Subject:    Re: [fossil-users] three-way merge
From:       "Wilson, Ronald" <rwilso20 () harris ! com>
Date:       2010-04-13 17:20:13
Message-ID: F1A6927144C98E429C9CB9E45D3B1BCF049A3DF0 () mlbe2k6 ! cs ! myharris ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

> Or would it be sufficient for Fossil to merely retain the three input
> files to the merge using some suffix when there is a conflict:
> 
>       problem.c~BASE
>       problem.c~OTHER
>       problem.c~THIS
> 
> Fossil would still writes its output (contain the <<<<<<< CONFLICT
> marks that people don't like) but the user would be able to manually
> invoke whatever graphical 3-way merging tool they want.

I'd say that would be a good start.  I'd keep your own nomenclature
instead of BASE OTHER THIS so that fossil is internally consistent and
maybe embed the artifact id or checkin id into the filenames as well -
or maybe not - I have to think about that one.

RW

Ron Wilson, Engineering Project Lead
(o) 434.455.6453, (m) 434.851.1612, www.harris.com

HARRIS CORPORATION   |   RF Communications Division
assuredcommunications(tm)

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]