SVN-like merging (contrib)

[Brendan Cully]

On Thursday, 11 May 2006 at 13:05, Colin McMillen wrote:
> > > 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).

I'd prefer using old, standard vocabulary (local/base/other). I don't
think the new terms are significantly more intuitive, and they just
mean more cycles spent thinking about them for people who are used to
doing merges in other systems.

I also don't think 'remote' implies another machine - just another
branch. Old-fashioned non-distributed SCMs are far more likely to have
'remote' just mean 'another branch in the same repository' than
new-fangled SCMs.