From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Robin Rosenberg (list subscriber)" Subject: Re: cvsps wierdness Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:06:20 +0200 Organization: Dewire Message-ID: <200606130806.21395.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> References: <200606122247.02727.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 13 08:07:02 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fq23H-0007lB-Mn for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:07:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932481AbWFMGGr convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:06:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932912AbWFMGGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:06:47 -0400 Received: from [83.140.172.130] ([83.140.172.130]:61753 "EHLO torino.dewire.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932481AbWFMGGq convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jun 2006 02:06:46 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by torino.dewire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB11802654; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:05:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from torino.dewire.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (torino [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08689-10; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:05:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.9.0.4] (unknown [10.9.0.4]) by torino.dewire.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4619802662; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:05:15 +0200 (CEST) To: Linus Torvalds User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at dewire.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: m=E5ndag 12 juni 2006 23:27 skrev Linus Torvalds: [...] > Does this patch fix it for you (untested - it could result in tons of > other trouble, but it basically just says that time ordering is less > important than member revision ordering). Thanks, it worked on the simple case at least. We'll see about the orig= inal=20 full repo later.=20 > > I don't think this is strictly correct, btw. I suspect you can still = get > into strange situations where the changeset merging has resulted in o= ne > file ordering one way, and another file ordering the other way. Doesn't cvsps's conflict handing simply break up those patches into sev= eral=20 patches? More patches is ok. Suboptimal patches can be accepted -- robin