Merge Wizard selecting changes

This forum is now locked, since Gold Support is no longer offered.

Moderator: SourceGear

Locked
GregM
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:00 am

Merge Wizard selecting changes

Post by GregM » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:30 am

Why does the merge wizard only work with contiguous ranges of transactions? If I check in a series of transactions, and someone does another one in the middle, then I can't exclude that transaction from the things I want to merge, and I have to do the merge in multiple passes.

ericsink
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: SourceGear
Contact:

Re: Merge Wizard selecting changes

Post by ericsink » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:53 am

GregM wrote:Why does the merge wizard only work with contiguous ranges of transactions?
Because it takes all the changesets from all the transactions you select and then compresses them all into one changeset. The alternative, which is how I am planning for the next version to work, is to iterate over the changesets one at a time. This approach is more powerful, but it does create a lot of extra work. Specifically, since the user may need to help resolve conflicts at each and every iteration, the user interaction issues get a lot more difficult to handle from a wizard running in a modal dialog.
Eric Sink
Software Craftsman
SourceGear

GregM
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:00 am

Post by GregM » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:28 pm

In my case, the files affected by the excluded changeset aren't in the rest of the changesets, so you should still be able to compress them to a single set with no merge problems.

ericsink
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: SourceGear
Contact:

Post by ericsink » Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:48 pm

GregM wrote:In my case, the files affected by the excluded changeset aren't in the rest of the changesets, so you should still be able to compress them to a single set with no merge problems.
Yeah, that is a special case.
Eric Sink
Software Craftsman
SourceGear

GregM
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:00 am

Post by GregM » Wed Feb 16, 2005 9:00 pm

Handling that special case might be a good first step.

Locked