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

[Angel Ezquerra]

El 16/05/2014 08:29, "Pierre-Yves David" <pierre-yves.david at ens-lyon.org>
escribió:
>
>
>
> On 05/15/2014 11:22 PM, Angel Ezquerra wrote:
>>
>> 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").
>
>
> If working copy is confusing, what about "uncommitted changes"?
>

To me an update modifies the working directory by changing its contents
from a source revision to a target revision. So I think I would prefer
"update source", "source revision", "original revision", "starting
revision" or something the sort.

>> […]
>
> >
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> What about you?

I wish I could but I don't think I have all the related patches.

Angel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20140516/476c5d0e/attachment.html>