Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Stephen Pair wrote:
> 
> > > No, but you're not thinking about it right.  Forget client side vs server
> > > side for a moment...what you are merging are two branches in your semantic
> > > model...whether it happens on the client or server makes no difference
> > > except as it relates to performance and complexity of the communications
> > > protocol (and maybe security, but completely forget that issue for now).
> > > The question is, do I want to move all of my code objects to the client to
> > > perform the merge or not.  If your clients are all working from a shared
> > > directory (with no server squeak process) then clearly, the only place you
> > > can do a merge is on the client.
> > >
> > > - Stephen
> >
> > Just a follow up to this...if you design the merge operation (in whatever
> > form that takes) to work on your semantic model, then it should make no
> > difference to you whether you are merging two package versions stored in the
> > repository, or you are merging one package version stored in the repository
> > and one that is only in the client image and has never made it into the
> > repository (the case when you are wanting to avoid creating a branch in the
> > repository).
> 
> That is indeed how the merge operation is designed.  In general, the
> semantic model is written to leave a lot of flexibility in terms of the
> process (when and how merges happen, etc).  It's because that flexibility
> is there that I'm even bothering to ask how things should work ;) - any of
> these should be very simple to implement.
> 
> "Client side" vs. "server side" is maybe the wrong terms for what I'm
> asking - basically it comes down to whether you merge two numbered,
> committed versions (like StORE) or merge one committed version into your
> uncommitted working copy (like CVS).  Or both.  Does that make sense?

Personally (without having used StORE) I think one good point in favour
of merging into your uncommitted wc is that you can then abandon it all
if you find out during the merge that, hey - this sucks.

The other model seems to require me to commit something before I can do
the merge and then if I get second thoughts I have committed something
that I perhaps regret.

This is IMHO one of the nice things with the CVS model - all work is
done in a WC and I don't commit anything until I am satisfied.

Just my two öre...

regards, Göran