From: Petr Baudis Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:40:38 GMT Subject: Re: Cogito Tutorial If It Helps Message-ID: <20050426214038.GP13224@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: <1114551403.3083.3.camel@kryten> Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:36:43PM CEST, I got a letter where James Purser told me that... > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 07:18, Petr Baudis wrote: > > cg-merge is _not_ like doing cg-diff | cg-patch - that's a dangerous > > thought, and not true at all. cg-diff | cg-patch will just apply the > > given diff to your working directory, but it won't record any merging > > metadata, will often get it very wrong, and you will get to all sorts of > > other troubles. Just always use cg-merge. And probably pass it -b only > > when you know what are you doing. > > Thanks for that, I've changed it a little to point out that cg-patch > should really only be used for small single file patches. No, you've missed the point. It isn't the size of the change what matters - cg-patch should handle even huge patches (mostly) fine. What matters is that you just did was not merge. It was applying some patch to your working tree, but not merging branches. So after doing cg-diff | cg-patch several times, you have your working tree full of huge local changes (making it impossible to sensibly cg-merge) and your last commit happenned long ago. Or you commit the cg-patch results, but your commits are wrong, since they don't carry the appropriate merge information. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor