At Thu, 16 Aug 2018 19:32:23 +0900, Yuya Nishihara wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 03:35:33 +0900, FUJIWARA Katsunori wrote: > > # HG changeset patch > > # User FUJIWARA Katsunori <[email protected]> > > # Date 1534244736 -32400 > > # Tue Aug 14 20:05:36 2018 +0900 > > # Node ID cffd12b0d927a859e99c8b5e3f451512c85999d1 > > # Parent 18cbe2d872d3184c4504094a6fd070ca96f48181 > > # Available At https://bitbucket.org/foozy/mercurial-wip > > # hg pull https://bitbucket.org/foozy/mercurial-wip -r > > cffd12b0d927 > > # EXP-Topic filemerge-refactor > > help: describe more detail about capabilities while deciding merge tool > > Queued the series, thanks. > > > +For historical reason, Mercurial assumes capabilities of internal > > +merge tools as below while examining rules above, regardless of actual > > +capabilities of them. > > + > > +==== =============== ====== ======= > > +step specified via binary symlink > > +==== =============== ====== ======= > > +1. --tool o o > > +2. HGMERGE o o > > +3. merge-patterns o x > > +4. ui.merge x x > > +==== =============== ====== ======= > > I'm not sure if I understand this table. > > "o" = capability is NOT checked > "x" = capability is checked > > Is that correct?
No, Mercurial assumes: "o" = has capability "x" = does not have capability I'll resend to revise description for understandability. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [FUJIWARA Katsunori] [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.mercurial-scm.org/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel
