[PATCH 2 of 3] mergetools.hgrc: disable vimdiff as a valid proposal for default mergetools

Martin Geisler mg at aragost.com
Tue Aug 21 05:39:11 CDT 2012


Laurens Holst <laurens.nospam at grauw.nl> writes:

> Op 21-08-12 11:42, Martin Geisler schreef:
>>>> And as mentioned above: There are different opinions on whether <<<
>>>> === >>> markers are pretty ok. Not having the ancestor revision makes
>>>> it harder than necessary to resolve correctly.
>>> I agree that the current internalmerge marker are suboptimal. But It
>>> does not seems hard to improve it. I use a version that create:
>>>
>>>      <<< local
>>>      This is the local version
>>>      ==== base
>>>      This is the common ancestor version
>>>      ==== other
>>>      This is the merge target version
>>>      >>>
>> Personally, I find anything more than "local and other" markers very
>> annoying when we talk about textual markers. If I get markers in my file
>> I want to be able to look at each conflict and delete the version I
>> don't like -- a binary choice. I find it too much if there are three
>> regions and I have to compare A with B and A with C and delete
>> everything but one region.
>
> In my experience having a base version (as well as revision numbers so
> I can do manual investigation in the log) is absolutely necessary for
> doing an informed merge for anything but the most basic of conflicts.

Okay -- I just guess that I wont try to resolve anything *but* the most
basic of conflicts without a graphical tool.

It's super difficult for me to judge how new users thing, but my guess
is that they will be confused by the base: they're merging two heads and
so they expect to see two choices for each conflict. I could be wrong,
though :)

-- 
Martin Geisler

aragost Trifork
Commercial Mercurial support
http://aragost.com/mercurial/


More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list