pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr
Fri Sep 7 06:20:17 CDT 2012
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 08:49:40PM -0500, Sean Farley wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Pierre-Yves David
> <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 08:01:06PM -0400, Greg Ward wrote:
> >> > | | | **conflicting** |
> >> > | | | |
> >> > | | | *conflicting* is changeset |
> >> > | | | that appears when multiple |
> >> > | | | changesets are successors |
> >> > | | | of the same precursor. |
> >> Hmmm. I'm torn on this. I completely understand why these two
> >> successors are considered "conflicting" (alternately, "in conflict").
> >> But the word "conflict" is pretty much taken already: it's what
> >> happens when I have to merge two revisions of a file with overlapping
> >> changes. You know, back in boring old-fashioned *first* order version
> >> control. ;-) I'm leery of using the same word for subtly related but
> >> distinct concepts.
> > Well, what do you think of
> > - clashing ? (I like this one)
> > - rival ? (bonus for not ending with "ing")
> > - colliding ? (meh, too close to conflicting)
> > - discording ?
> I disagree with Greg on this issue. As an experiment, I introduced
> this concept (and issue with 'conflict' naming) to some of my
> colleagues and no one was at all tripped up. Of course, this is no
> proof but it seems the use of the word 'conflict' is natural in this
We can't keep conflicting here: "I got a conflicting conflicting changeset resolution"
My current favorite are:
I like clashing because it's short. But concurent have a very good
semantic for that.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Mercurial-devel