On Thursday, August 7, 2003, at 03:39  PM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> [Various things]
> Ok.
>
> Avi Bryant <avi at beta4.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
>>> - Specifically with the RB, it seemed that some class extension 
>>> methods
>>> appeared as differences (but not conflicts). I don't notice anything
>>> special about these methods. Any ideas? do you see this too?
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  Can you elaborate?
>
> I loaded the RB from SM. Fixed various KCP issues. Then loaded MC, then
> loaded the previous RB .mcv. I got warned about spurious conflicts,
> proceeded.

There are two issues here. One is that you may see spurious conflicts 
because of changed timestamps: the code is the same as it was, but the 
timestamp is not. This is a bug.

The other is that you're doing things a bit backwards here. If you do 
your fixes before loading MC, it can't know what version you were 
working against. Without that ancestry information, later merges will 
have spurious conflicts as well. There isn't much that can be done 
about that.

Colin