Code review comment for lp:~spiv/bzr/per-file-merge-hook-491711

On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:08 +0000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>
> * it is invoked for all changes where one side has changed the
> content, and the other side has changed the content or deleted the fil

Why not 'all changes' ? I don't see why we should prevent hooks merging
even one-side changes in a more sophisticated manner.

> * should a hook function be able to have some control over the
> emission of THIS/BASE/OTHER files when it results in a conflict, or
> over their contents of those files?

I think yes, but that can come later.

> * what helpers can we provide to help people write hook functions?
> * what more can we do to help multiple hook registrations co-exist
> peacefully? e.g. These functions already chain, but if multiple
> plugins register with this hook the ordering is not defined.

I don't think the ordering matters, except in the case that someone is
writing a new 'fallback' hook, to replace our three-way merge attempt.
Perhaps put a priority into the hook or something? I'd wait for signs we
need it.

> I think ideally this hook point would be marked experimental until we
> get some practical experience proving that it works well in practice
> (e.g. that someone can write a plugin to merge NEWS files), but that's
> what beta series are for ;)

You can just mark it experimental in the docs ;)

-Rob