Derek Robert Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/05/2003 10:38:02 AM: > No. The GCA has not changed and CVS determines it correctly. You > simply no longer wish to merge from the GCA forward because some of > those changes were already merged to your destination (from another > branch and at your own request - CVS did nothing wrong) and you wish to > avoid conflicts.
I am not saying CVS is doing anything wrong; I think it is following its design precisely. I think my problem may be with terminology. If I merge from a child to the trunk, and then I later merge it again, what is the greatest common ancestor on that second merge? Still the beginning of the child? Or is it now point of the first merge? It sounds like you are saying the former - following the strict CVS definition for GCA, that is right. But what about an alternate definition of "ancestry" based on both branches _and_ merges? Right now to do that second merge I have to tell CVS where to start - it no longer uses its GCA algorithm to figure that out for me. But I am telling it the new common "ancestor" myself - the point of the previous merge (as opposed to the point of the branch). Isn't this an analogous process to CVS' current GCA? _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
