Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
[...]
>> At this point, I think the issue boils down to:
>>
>> * Yes, the criss-cross situation can be produced in plausible real life
>> usage.
>>
>> * The current handling is sub-optimal, though not worse than we've had
>> before.
>>
>> * We
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> As far as I have been able to discover, there is no generally agreed
> solution to the problem. Most of the references I can find are, like [3],
> a commentary on one or more of the attempts that have been made to find a
> better solution.
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> From a process perspective, it seems much more prudent to
>>> do "qualified" merges like "merge from /trunk up to the last
>>> fully tested nightly build revision" and "merge from branch up
>>
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross
> > merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy
> > where those cases become the norm rather than an exception.
> >
> > Most people
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross
> merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy
> where those cases become the norm rather than an exception.
>
> Most people seem to do what one might call "unqualified" catch-up
> merges,
Hi all,
In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross
merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy
where those cases become the norm rather than an exception.
Most people seem to do what one might call "unqualified" catch-up
merges, i.e. "merge everything up
6 matches
Mail list logo
