Re: Proposed merge rules Jonathan S. Shapiro (
Tue, 18 Apr 2000 00:45:59 -0400

> The rule is, the person merging has to resolve the conflicts. In this
> scenario, what should happen is, my attempt to merge after monty shows
> (All but one of Monty's diffs in JCR are a NoOp), and the last one he made
> gives me an update conflict which I must resolve in order to check in. I
> can resolve it either by updating JCR with Monty's last diff (Wasn't that
> movie from the 1940's?) or by using my authority to alter BL and either
> keep or remove Monty's diff as I'm adding mine.

I understand the theory. The question is: what history needs to be tracked in order to get this right, and how is the integration algorithm to go about constructing the integration diff?

Actually, the case you raise isn't that bad. The really tough nut comes if you take Monty's changes 3,4, and 6 of 7. If you do this kind of thing, merely applying the missing diffs will often break things.

Also, suppose you do this and check it in first. What happens when *Monty* then does a join? This would seem to require recognizing which changes have already been incorporated.