Robert Collins wrote:
> 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.
I assume this is because the merge code itself splits these cases. Files
with clear winners don't get passed into the Merger code. Also, there is
bidirectional issues.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Collins wrote:
> 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.
I assume this is because the merge code itself splits these cases. Files
with clear winners don't get passed into the Merger code. Also, there is
bidirectional issues.
John enigmail. mozdev. org/
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAks rw+oACgkQJdeBCY SNAANPTQCeLRj5S T7fT58nGOkIJldt yNis nr8shdECpIyLRbx tY
9fsAoMnNoCWak28
=lRgj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----