Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
- take every single merge in git (or the kernel, if you want even more)
The attached is the script I am using. The test checks the
output from 'master' (merge from RCS) and 'next' (with xdl-merge)
and also tries to see how different the conflicts look like.
In the git.git archive, there is no "clean" merge on which
'master' and 'next' did not agree. It is not a proof of
correctness at all but it gives a sense of assurance.
And all merges in linux-2.6.git archive either result in
conflict with both 'merge' implementations, or cleanly resolves
the same way with both 'merge' implementations. I have not
compared the conflicted cases yet, but at least it gives me a
warm fuzzy feeling to see that autocommitted stuff are sensible.
Hi,
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
- take every single merge in git (or the kernel, if you want even more)
The attached is the script I am using. The test checks the
output from 'master' (merge from RCS) and 'next' (with xdl-merge)
and also tries to see how different the conflicts look like.
In the git.git archive, there is no "clean" merge on which
'master' and 'next' did not agree. It is not a proof of
correctness at all but it gives a sense of assurance.
And all merges in linux-2.6.git archive either result in
conflict with both 'merge' implementations, or cleanly resolves
the same way with both 'merge' implementations. I have not
compared the conflicted cases yet, but at least it gives me a
warm fuzzy feeling to see that autocommitted stuff are sensible.
Thank you! Slowly I also get a warm fuzzy feeling...
My idea, to have an inbuilt work-alike to RCS merge, was not only
instigated by my liking the zealous option, but also to be able to add
relatively fast tests.
Originally, I thought that building in git-merge-one-file, and enhancing
it to recognize by the parameters if it should act as a merge replacement,
would be the way to go. Should I do this, or rather add
builtin-merge-file?
Ciao,
Dscho