mhosken wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> In the developer documentation on the LCA merge algorithm it describes a
> difference between LCA and merge3 whereby LCA does not report that
> delete + change is a conflict. It also states that reporting it this way
> is a core value for the LCA algorithm
It's a conceptual bug in LCA. It's not considered desirable.
> (See section Algorithm point 3).
> Are there plans to fix this in LCA (or weave for that matter)?
Not yet. First we have figure out the right way to tweak the algorithm
to make it do what we want. The two options that present themselves are:
- - Make it actually based on a merge3 merger
- - Make it an edge-based merger
Both are fairly significant changes.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
mhosken wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> In the developer documentation on the LCA merge algorithm it describes a
> difference between LCA and merge3 whereby LCA does not report that
> delete + change is a conflict. It also states that reporting it this way
> is a core value for the LCA algorithm
It's a conceptual bug in LCA. It's not considered desirable.
> (See section Algorithm point 3).
> Are there plans to fix this in LCA (or weave for that matter)?
Not yet. First we have figure out the right way to tweak the algorithm
to make it do what we want. The two options that present themselves are:
- - Make it actually based on a merge3 merger
- - Make it an edge-based merger
Both are fairly significant changes.
Aaron enigmail. mozdev. org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iD8DBQFIPdvB0F+ nu1YWqI0RArV0AJ 4gmxqppoEZDTb+ N5ZAToA5vang2gC fdnrS ytZsKDigY=
1HiS7XPnMKF8p+
=OPmN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----