Robert Widhopf-Fenk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Merging from archive A must NOT require access to archive B.
If the common ancestor is in B, then, it could hardly do otherwise. Perhaps baz has just been too greedy when computing the ancestry. Then it is a bug, but note that it is due to the migration from tla to bazaar. For a native baz project, the ancestry is pre-computed. > While baz might use B to find a better merge point/strategy > it must not require access to B, since this effectively prevents > merging from A when B is gone. Not exactly. It prevents you from using the "merge" command, but you still have apply-delta and replay. > Baz should give a warning (about suboptimal merging?), but > it still should be able to merge from A. I'm not familiar enough with the merge algorithm to give a firm answer, but I think "suboptimal" is not the word here: If you don't have the common ancestor, you can't apply the traditional merge algorithm. > Tla is able to do so last time I checked, tla's star-merge command was only looking at the current version. If the common ancestor was beyond that, then tla stopped with a "unrelated trees" or stg like this, so, it was not even trying to build the common ancestor. So, bazaar may not be able to do as much as it should, but it does more than tla in this case. -- Matthieu _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
