From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:47:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Expected Behavior?
Message-ID: <46a038f90511091847t70567e50o2303f1dc7ada2464@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051109234925.GL30496@pasky.or.cz>

On 11/10/05, Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> But that's something different that I'm talking about. :-)

Ack! Sorry about that!

> Yes. My longer plan is to use the strategy resolvers as well, but my
> TODO list is big... And I don't perceive this as a critical thing (the
> standard strategy seems to work well enough), although I would like to
> see this before 1.0.

Fair enough. If you can outline how the interaction between cg-merge
and cg-commit are expected to work, I'll try and find some time for
that.

> > Right now I am seeing some slightly abnormal things (*) in how some
> > our our merges are going, so I' ll have to roll up my sleeves at some
> > point and try and figure out what's going on. And as I look into
> > cg-merge and cg-Xmergefile, not many eyes have been through it...
>
> At least this is the one area of Cogito that has at least a bit
> reasonable automated testing suite. ;-)

The good news is that git-merge is doing almost the same. Posted separately...


martin