Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "merge" does a better job than "diff3" since it can resolve the
>
> The merge command I know of is part of Tichy's RCS tools,
> and calls diff3, and has no inherent superior abilities.
You are right, I missed some diff3 options. It looks like "diff3 -mE"
> "merge" does a better job than "diff3" since it can resolve the
The merge command I know of is part of Tichy's RCS tools,
and calls diff3, and has no inherent superior abilities.
Is this the merge command you have in mind here?
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > I have a feeling that the kernel.org mirror system is just going to
> > _love_ us using it to store temporary git trees :)
>
> I don't
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> On 2005-04-11, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >If merge took trees instead of single files, and had some way of detecting
> >renames (or it got additional information about the differences between
> >files), would that give BK-quality performance? Or does BK
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So anything that got modified in just one tree obviously merges to that
> version. Any file that got modified in two trees will end up just being
> passed to the "merge" program. See "man merge" and "man diff3". The merger
> gets to fix up any conflict
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> If merge took trees instead of single files, and had some way of detecting
> renames (or it got additional information about the differences between
> files), would that give BK-quality performance? Or does BK also support
I wrote a script to do merges
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 16:31 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 14:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I don't think kernel.org mirrors the private home directories, so it you
> > do _temporary_ trees, just make them readable in your private home
> > directory rather than in /pub/
On 2005-04-11, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>If merge took trees instead of single files, and had some way of detecting
>renames (or it got additional information about the differences between
>files), would that give BK-quality performance? Or does BK also support
>cases like:
>
>orig ---> first ---> fi
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > But I hope that I can get non-conflicting merges done fairly soon, and
> > > maybe I can con James or Jeff or somebody to try out GIT then...
> >
> > I don't mind being a guinea pig as long as someone
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 14:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't think kernel.org mirrors the private home directories, so it you
> do _temporary_ trees, just make them readable in your private home
> directory rather than in /pub/linux/kernel/people. For people with
> kernel.org accounts, we ca
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> I have a feeling that the kernel.org mirror system is just going to
> _love_ us using it to store temporary git trees :)
I don't think kernel.org mirrors the private home directories, so it you
do _temporary_ trees, just make them readable in your private
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:25:22PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > If yes, then I would appreciate if you could either keep the same list,
> > > or if you want to change the list na
On Monday 11 April 2005 08:51, Chris Mason wrote:
> rej -M skips the merge program, so rej -a -M will give you something like
> this:
>
> coffee:/local/linux.p # rej -a -M drivers/ide/ide.c.rej
> drivers/ide/ide.c: 1 matched, 0 conflicts remain
>
> But I would want to go over the bit that
On 2005-04-11 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>Then the bad news: the merge algorithm is going to suck. It's going to be
>just plain 3-way merge, the same RCS/CVS thing you've seen before. With no
>understanding of renames etc. I'll try to find the best parent to base the
>merge off of, although early tester
On Monday 11 April 2005 03:38, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So anything that got modified in just one tree obviously merges to
> > that version. Any file that got modified in two trees will end up just
> > being passed to the "merge" program. See "man merge"
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then the bad news: the merge algorithm is going to suck. It's going to
> be just plain 3-way merge, the same RCS/CVS thing you've seen before.
> With no understanding of renames etc. I'll try to find the best parent
> to base the merge off of, alt
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 09:10 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Do you intend to continue posting "commited" patches to a mailing list
> like bk scripts did to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? As I said a while ago, I
> find this very useful, especially with the actual patch included in the
> commit message
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Then the bad news: the merge algorithm is going to suck. It's going to be
> just plain 3-way merge, the same RCS/CVS thing you've seen before. With no
Actually 3-way merge is not that bad. It's definitely better than ClearCase's
merge (I always fall bac
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:15:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > But I hope that I can get non-conflicting merges done fairly soon, and
> > > maybe I can con James or Jeff or somebody to try out GIT then...
> >
> > I don't mind being a guinea pig as
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > But I hope that I can get non-conflicting merges done fairly soon, and
> > maybe I can con James or Jeff or somebody to try out GIT then...
>
> I don't mind being a guinea pig as long as someone else does the hard
> work of finding a new way to me
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
If yes, then I would appreciate if you could either keep the same list,
or if you want to change the list name, keep the subscriber list so
those of us who actually archive it don't miss anything ;)
I didn't even set up the l
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 16:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > If yes, then I would appreciate if you could either keep the same list,
> > or if you want to change the list name, keep the subscriber list so
> > those of us who actually archive it d
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Do you intend to continue posting "commited" patches to a mailing list
> like bk scripts did to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ? As I said a while ago, I
> find this very useful, especially with the actual patch included in the
> commit message (which is
23 matches
Mail list logo
