Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:15:58 +0100 From: Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: sysutils/etcmerge vs mergemaster Message-ID: <200711171116.06705.peter.schuller@infidyne.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1322385.lVyvA3lGPi Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Hello, etcmerge, with three-way merging, has been available for a while, but the m= an=20 page still warns of it not being extensively tested, and of course=20 mergermaster still seems to be the officially supported tool. In spite of this, etcmerge is attractive since, to be honest, manually=20 saying "yes update" to a bunch of files that mostly have only CVS revision= =20 changes is a waste of time. (In addition even files with local changes woul= d=20 be easier to handle with etcmerge) Given the obvious benefit to etcmerge's fundamental algorithm I have to won= der=20 why it does not seem to be more wide spread in use. Are there problems with= =20 it that I don't know about? How many people use it in production? Are there= =20 advantages to mergemaster that causes mergemaster to even be preferred over= =20 etcmerge as the default tool in base? =2D-=20 / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <peter.schuller@infidyne.com>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to getpgpkey@scode.org E-Mail: peter.schuller@infidyne.com Web: http://www.scode.org --nextPart1322385.lVyvA3lGPi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBHPr9mDNor2+l1i30RAk98AJ43N6xHhg74aJLQfYV1W/Q+lbRmGQCgh7eD qcznl3f2VlLMXIfNO8RW26g= =cCRd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1322385.lVyvA3lGPi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200711171116.06705.peter.schuller>