nks also to all previous respondents.
>
> *From:* Scott Robison
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 14, 2015 8:22 PM
> *To:* Fossil SCM user's discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
>
> Thanks for this. It made it easy for me to visualize what is goi
ossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
Thanks for this. It made it easy for me to visualize what is going on -- and no
debugging was necessary! :)
...
I hope that explanation makes sense.
Perhaps it would make sense to modify the "common ancestor" line in the marked
up merge file
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:14 PM, wrote:
> The following Windows batch file will reproduce the condition I’m talking
> about (f = fossil):
>
> f new sample.fossil
> f o sample.fossil
> echo Hello > hello.txt
> f add hello.txt
> f com -m Initial
> echo Hello, World > hello.
But did you have to spoil our innocence? :)
From: Stephan Beal
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:14 AM, wrote:
f up ...
f me ...
while i also use 'f&#
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:14 AM, wrote:
> f up ...
> f me ...
>
while i also use 'f' as a local fossil alias, it never, until now, occurred
to me how inappropriate it sounds in conjunction with specific commands! ;)
--
- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
http://gplus.to/
t;
echo Computer said: Hello, World > hello.txt
f com -m "Added 'Computer said'"
f up trunk
f me other --cherrypick
From: Scott Robison
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:17 AM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Unexp
ke “Cherry-picked content carries previous
> check-ins” or “Cannot cherry pick this particular line” would also be nice.
>
> *From:* Scott Robison
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2015 6:40 PM
> *To:* Fossil SCM user's discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge c
: Scott Robison
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 6:40 PM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
On Nov 13, 2015 9:15 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" wrote:
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
> By “merge from trunk” I mean I’m in branch ‘t
On Nov 13, 2015 9:15 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" wrote:
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
> By “merge from trunk” I mean I’m in branch ‘trunk’ and from there I’m
doing the merge.
> And, I’m merging the “check-in from the ... [other] branch” I mean the
check-in which is part of the other part.
>
> I think
version. So, how can that be considered common?
(Then again, maybe I’m having a misconception of which the common ancestor is.)
Thanks.
From: Scott Robison
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:53 PM
To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
On N
On Nov 13, 2015 8:20 AM, "Tony Papadimitriou" wrote:
>
> Here’s a merge conflict I thought should have been resolved automatically:
>
> I have the trunk version from where the symbol RF_OUT is renamed to
SRF_OUT in the branch version. It has never been renamed to SRF_OUT in the
trunk version (yet
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
> The important thing is that the *common ancestor* with regards to this
> line of code is the local version, since it hasn’t changed in the trunk,
> only in the branch. So, I expected all (accumulated) changes in the
> merged-in cherry-
t: Re: [fossil-users] Unexpected merge conflict
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
<<<<<<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
@?status RF
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
> <<< BEGIN MERGE CONFLICT: local copy shown first <<<
> @?status RF_OUT,#?MsgOn,#?MsgOff,fWriteZ
> === COMMON ANCESTOR content follows
> @?status
Here’s a merge conflict I thought should have been resolved automatically:
I have the trunk version from where the symbol RF_OUT is renamed to SRF_OUT in
the branch version. It has never been renamed to SRF_OUT in the trunk version
(yet).
When trying to merge (--cherrypick, actually) from trun
15 matches
Mail list logo
