[PATCH] Merge needs no BASE_SPEC, better docs

[John Arbash Meinel]

Aaron Bentley wrote:

> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> | So you have a base tree, which you commit up to rev 10. You then branch
> | this, and work continues on both trees. You then merge the 2 changes to
> | the base tree into your branch. I'm pretty sure common ancestor will
> | find those correctly, since the revision numbers line up perfectly.
> | But now branch1 technically is branched off of base at 12, will it realize
> | this when you go to merge again at branch at 20? Or will it only see that
> | the common ancestor is base at 10?
>
> It will say the last common ancestor is base at 10.
>
> I wouldn't say base at 12 is ever the last common ancestor, because it
> doesn't appear in the revision history of one of the branches.  I'd call
> it the last common merge.
>
> I would really, really like to do last-common-merge instead of
> last-common-ancestor.  I don't have the metadata I need yet.
>
> Aaron

Sure. Is that what .bzr/merged-patches is for? At least in theory?
Obviously it isn't used at all right now.

John
=:->

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20050526/b8708fa3/attachment.pgp