Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Jaka Kranjc <lynx AT mages.ath.cx>]

On Thursday 31 of May 2007 17:24:16 you wrote:
> On 5/31/07, Jaka Kranjc <lynx AT mages.ath.cx> wrote:
> > I simply think this is an unneeded complication. I favour simplicity over
> > accuracy here.
> >
> > Would it be really advantageous for integrations if the new items were
> > under a new title like here instead under the first? I think you'd get a
> > conflict any way (for sure with the second). Adding more numbers to the
> > title wouldn't help much here.
>
> Yeah you'd get a conflict no matter what but the integrations would go
> smoother I've had this happen to me in the past with the linux spell
> git seems to do okay if the history entries are done appropriately but
> if the commit looks like the one I've posted it barfs really hard.
> Also with the extra work it takes to integrate to stable/stable-rc now
> it would be nicer to make merging easier.
>
> - David Brown
For proper HISTORY integrations, we figured long ago that we just need to 
write our own merge (strategy) script and somehow plug it in. Since it would 
be custom, it could be made to support anything we wanted.

-- 
We cannot command nature except by obeying her.  --Sir Francis Bacon
Have a sourcerous day! www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.