On Apr 29, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Another such case that I ran into recently is
> with reverse-merging changes. Those "un-merged"
> revisions seem not to re-appear on the "eligible
> for merge" list. Don't remember the specifics, though.
I seem to recall that that was a consc
Am 24.04.2012 22:27, schrieb Daniel Shahaf:
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 22:20:52 +0200:
(2) Modified merges.
In case of textual conflicts, users will usually resolve them
before committing the merge result. Depending on policies,
a user may even need to modify textually success
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> (2) Modified merges.
> In case of textual conflicts, users will usually resolve them
> before committing the merge result. Depending on policies,
> a user may even need to modify textually successful merges
> to e.g. fix a broken build before the merge may be committed.
>
(I'm using separate Subject lines for my replies to your two points.)
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> (1) Renamed / moved nodes.
> [...] even *with* move support in the back-end,
> we could not rely on the mv command being used accurately
> and consistently [...] And there is lots of gray area where
> s
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 22:20:52 +0200:
> (2) Modified merges.
> In case of textual conflicts, users will usually resolve them
> before committing the merge result. Depending on policies,
> a user may even need to modify textually successful merges
> to e.g. fix a broken build
5 matches
Mail list logo
