[PATCH 4 of 5 V3] update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC)

[Angel Ezquerra]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Olle <olle.lundberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Durham Goode <durham at fb.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/15/14, 4:33 AM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:47:36 -0700
>> >Durham Goode <durham at fb.com> wrote:
>> >> # HG changeset patch
>> >> # User Durham Goode <durham at fb.com>
>> >> # Date 1399684151 25200
>> >> #      Fri May 09 18:09:11 2014 -0700
>> >> # Node ID 2ca6a41546b166ca491537d85729fc3e9c42c01b
>> >> # Parent  3e64ef576f5da47348903d25727d5e7c6c6a046a
>> >> update: specify custom conflict markers for update (BC)
>> >>
>> >> Add custom conflict markers 'working copy' and 'destination' for doing
>> >>hg update
>> >> when there are conflicts between your working copy and the destination.
>> >
>> >I find the term "destination" confusing in that context. Why not
>> >"repository"?
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >Antoine.
>>
>> I don¹t think normal users have a great understanding of the difference
>> between the working copy and the repository.  Œdestination¹ at least
>> differentiates itself from working copy in that the working copy is your
>> files, and destination is where you¹re going, especially since this only
>> shows up during an hg update.
>>
> I think this change made it harder to understand merge margers (granted i'm
> used to local/other) destination just confused me and i had to re-read the
> patch description when looking at the test output.
>
> If we are going to replace the names, can't we do it with the nomenclature
> used in mercurial, rather than introduce another word *not* commonly used in
> merge markers?
>
> working copy/repo seems sensible to me.

I also find "working copy / destination" confusing. The destination
part is more or less fine (although perhaps "target" or "update
target" would be better) but the "working copy" is ambiguous IMHO.
What working copy? The one before or after the update? When I think
about a merge during an update I tend to think of the working copy as
the _result_ of the merge which is in fact the destination! (i.e. to
me "working copy / source" would make more sense than "working copy /
destination"). Instead I would suggest using "source" or "update
source" (i.e. "source / destination").

That being said, I also find that adding custom markers may make
things more confusing than they were unless they are very, very clear
and consistent. Otherwise we risk introducing a bunch of new concepts
that are only used in some very particular contexts.

Could someone make  list of the proposed markers for all commands that
require them, so that they can all be seen in one single place and
commented on? I think it would make it easier to make sure that all of
them are more or less consistent.

Cheers,

Angel