Re: problems with vc-merge.
>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Turnbull
<turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
Uwe Brauer writes:
Why? That is the correct thing to do in this case, since you want
a result that ignores VC.
Not really I want to use vc for my purposes. That is at a given file 2
authors made changes simultaneously.
> So I want to use vc-merge somehow:
> If I understand you correctly file2 and
> file3 cannot be represented by version 1.2 and 1.3
> but rather my branches.
No. They can't be represented by (different) branches because
they're on the same branch. They therefore have a common ancestor
which is one of them, and the result of the merge then is the
other.
Yeah so I tried a different approach:
I tried to merge
Branch 1.2.1.2 (=file2 of my example)
and
Branch 1.3.1.2 (file=3 of my example)
Again it did not work out as I expected.
So the question is simply this, is there a way that vc(merge) can deal
with a file which has been changed by 2 authors the way I described it?
Uwe
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta