Re: [cdv-devel] tree merging

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:47:58AM -0700, Bram Cohen wrote:
> The really interesting case is the following one:
> 
>       A
>      / \
>     /   \
>    /     \
>   P       W
>   |\     /|
>   | \   / |
>   |  \ /  |
>   Q   X   Y
>   |  / \  |
>   | /   \ |
>   |/     \|
>   R       Z
>    \     /
>     \   /
>      \ /
>       ?
> 
> A is foo, P and W are bar, and Q and Y are foo. R and Z should both clean
> merge to bar, because there's a do/undo on one side and a do on the other,

I disagree on this. Filenames shouldn't be resurrected that way. At least,
I would be surprised at this clean merge.

Also, supporting both resurrection and convergence is pretty broken, a
choice would have to be made between them.

> but currently they don't. Further, if R and Z are both bar then merging
> them together should result in foo but with an ancestor conflict, which is
> basically a 'this might be garbled' warning with no alternate version.

Ancestor conflicts only exist when you support resurrection. Our current
behaviour is pretty reasonable all around.

Ross