John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 09:05:10AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > Upon reflection, I think you must have meant merging in the other > direction: fixes from #1 merged into #2 and #3, and enhancements > from #2 merged into #3. That makes sense. > > ??? Surely merging is a commutative operation? One starts with two > streams of development and end up with only one which is the union of > the first two. A \cup B \equiv B \cup A I don't see that it makes any > sense to talk about the direction in which one merges.
The merge itself is commutative. What one does with the result is not. If merge(A,B) replaces branch A, then I call that "merging B into A", because A now includes B, and similarly if merge(A,B) replaces B, then I would call that "merging A into B". After either operation, either branch can continue development along its own path. I think that this is common terminology, but I see that it is not universal. -- "Sanity is not statistical." --George Orwell _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
