SVN-like merging (contrib)

Colin McMillen mcmillen at cs.cmu.edu
Thu May 11 12:05:42 CDT 2006


> > If this is the case, then "parent/base/other" would be better.
> 
> No, that confuses me even more.
> 
> local = current = mine = the file in the working directory
> base = common ancestor of local and other
> other = remote = what should be the new version if I discard my changes

I think it's a bad idea to use "local" or "remote" in a distributed SCM,
as it's very likely that "base" and "other" could also be "local" files
(in the sense of existing on the same machine, not necessarily being in
the same repository).  So "current" is more clear. So
"current/base/other" makes the most sense to me, though "parent" instead
of "base" would also be intuitive and acceptable (which leaves us back
at Sébastien's suggestion).

- Colin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20060511/b02c41b7/attachment.pgp


More information about the Mercurial mailing list