What revision control has the best merging engine
Men air max 90 could not testing resolve some of the “human” factor. The humans know what they are trying to produce, so the conflict could be resolved by compiling and running test. Unit tests aught to be at a small enough level that a couple updates to the same method should be feasible in a few passes, if the test is successful both ways humans need to be involved, if the merge system determines there are too many variations that the compile is not tractable humans will need to be involved. Quaternion Jul 29 ’11 at 23:05
The problem is that there are lots of corner cases, and “smart” algorithms for merging can trick themselves into thinking they’ve done the merge correctly when in fact they’ve completely scrozzled your code. If you’re lucky, such a bad merge causes a compiletime failure. If you’re unlucky, it may introduce a subtle bug that takes ages to track down.
Git uses a fairly straightforward merge algorithm and throws up its hands and asks for help if it can’t do the merge. In my opinion, this is exactly what you want your version control system to do. The amount of grief you are spared by this is well worth the time it takes you to manually fix conflicts. (Also, if there are conflicts in a merge, git lists the conflicted files in its autogenerated commit message for you this is a very handy thing for finding errors when you are spelunking through your code history.)
Try to merge quickly. One nightmare was having a branch that did not rejoin main line for almost 2 years. When it was merged, many conflicts needed to be resolved. One developer earned the nickname “merge master” after spending a great deal of time fixing merge issues.
Be careful with auto generated code from wizards etc. Sometime this can be a real pain to merge, espeically if two branches autogenerated changes on nike air max for mens the same file.
Try to control development. If developer A is ripping apart code files X and Y, it doesn’t make much sense for developer B to work on X and Y in a different branch. Part of the merge management is to try and control men air max 90 what is being modified to avoid the potential for merge conflicts.
This is not to say that 2 developers can’t work on the same file in 2 different branches. If 1 developer adds method A and another addsmethod B, then the merge should happen painlessly.
In the end there are always going to be some conflicts that need human intervention. By keeping those to a minimum you will have the best merge results.
When using mercurial (and git as well, I’m reasonably sure) you pick your merge engine, by default it’s kdiff3 but you can use anything you like (beyond compare, p4merge etc.).
AFAIK the merge engine and VCS are often completely separate, kind of like your compiler and text editor. Take XML vs code for example, you’re going to want different things to merge those, they don’t work in the same way and so can’t be merged in the same way.
If you’re switching version control because you need a better merge tool you’re doing it for the wrong reasons, you should only switch version control when the one you’re using now doesn’t fit your process well (or another one would allow you to use a better process).
What do you mean by “main merge tool, The default algorithm, or the one you specified? If you mean the latter, as fair as I know, none of them work that way. Every VCS I familiar with uses their internal algorithm to merge and only invokes the userselected tool if there is a conflict. Note that some VCSs like git do allow you to choose among several builtin strategies, and some VCSs have fairly sophisticated internal algorithms but that leads to the problem I described in my answer. ebneter Aug 1 ’11 at 23:20
How well a VCS handles conflicts within a file is in my mind a bit overrated. For one thing, the best way to deal with such conflicts is to not have them in the first place. Factoring your software well and divvying out assignments with forethought will vastly reduce conflicts within a cluster of files (let alone within a file). Do a bad job such as tossing in one too many god classes, or a common configuration file that everyone has to use and everyone wants to muck with and men air max 90 you are asking for filelevel conflicts.
For another, they all use pretty much the same (lousy) algorithm. nike air max for mens An example: An alpha release of our project had a minor memory leak. It was more of a drip rather than a leak, and the leak stopped at the end of initialization time. Worthy of a fix, not worthy of a patch. One of our customers “fixed” the problem, putting the free in the wrong place. The problem was fixed in the next release. This customer merged the new release rather than doing a complete replacement (WTF?). There were no conflicts in the threeway merge; the calls to free were wellisolated from one another. So now the software is dropping nike air max for mens core due to a double free.
What is being missed in the discussion is how hard / timeconsuming / errorprone it is to merge your work back into the main line of the software.
Commit the changes to your branch.
Merge the trunk into your branch.
If you have a big project you might want to think of taking a coffee break or going to lunch.
Pray that you won’t see any tree conflicts when you come back.
Commit the results of the merge into your branch.
Merge your branch into the trunk.
Take another coffee break.
Once again pray that you won’t see any tree conflicts when you come back.
Commit your changes back into the trunk.
Close your door so as to avoid conflicts with your coworker who was trying to do the same thing.
That is far many nonatomic steps, far too many places where errors can creep in (tree conflicts are just nasty), and it takes far too men air max 90 much time. I’ve seen multiple projects that gave up on using branches with subversion thanks largely to the merge process being so timeconsuming and error prone. I’ve seen even more projects switch from subversion altogether largely because of this men air max 90 nike air max for mens.