[PATCH 2 of 3] mergetools.hgrc: disable vimdiff as a valid proposal for default mergetools
Mads Kiilerich
mads at kiilerich.com
Thu Aug 2 14:02:32 UTC 2012
On 02/08/12 15:35, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 03:25:44PM +0200, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>> On 02/08/12 14:21, pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Pierre-Yves David <pierre-yves.david at logilab.fr>
>>> # Date 1343908321 -7200
>>> # Branch stable
>>> # Node ID 68604f26c8b5962dd6bfc3099f6fa3e428fbc91d
>>> # Parent 192441ab174c489bd7bbc61d8bd0e4658f79aeaf
>>> mergetools.hgrc: disable vimdiff as a valid proposal for default mergetools.
>>>
>>> Vimdiff is currently prefered to the default merge tool is no graphical tool are
>>> available. Use is a very bad idea for multiple reasons:
>>>
>>> - People which don't know vim will have an hard time to even understand what
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> - Most vimer don't use vimdiff themself.
>>>
>>> We keep the entry here to ease the use of vimdiff as a mergetool. We just don't
>>> want it enabled by default.
>> This will still leave vimdiff enabled and with higher priority than
>> the internal:merge default.
> The same files have a merge entry with -100 priority.
'merge' from GNU RCS? Not something that is installed on all machines
... and probably also one of the tools where having it installed wasn't
a deliberate choice and doesn't mean that the user wants to use it.
> We would add a -500 priority for internal merge.
internal:merge is a last resort. It is not in any way recommended or
best practice. Some users might have gotten used to that mode of
operation from CVS and prefer that. They are welcome. We should however
not expose new and innocent users to that - just like we should avoid
'merge' and 'vimdiff'.
>
>> How about introducing internal:abort and something like this in
>> mergetools.hgrc:
>>
>> internal:abort.priority = -1
>> internal:abort.message =
>> No suitable merge tool has been found.
>> Please make sure a merge tool of your choice is installed and
>> configured in Mercurial with a positive priority.
>> See 'hg help merge-tools' and 'hg showconfig --debug merge-tools'.
> Will this tool create <<< === >>> marker anyway ? They are a pretty ok and standard way to handle merge.
No, the idea was that internal:abort should abort with the specified
message.
And as mentioned above: There are different opinions on whether <<< ===
>>> markers are pretty ok. Not having the ancestor revision makes it
harder than necessary to resolve correctly.
/Mads
More information about the Mercurial-devel
mailing list