On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:00:57PM +1300, Jonathan Chen wrote:> Hi Kyle, > > On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote: > ... > > mergemaster only uses it as an optimization, if they're unexpanded > > throughout then it falls back to diff(1) -- i.e. it's slower without. > > Thanks for the answer. > > However, wouldn't this mean that every run of "mergemaster" would > prompt for local changes? The nice thing about using the $FreeBSD$ > tags was that if I approved a local-change, subsequent runs of > mergemaster would not prompt me about the local-change unless the > etc-file had been modified in the source tree. > > Cheers. > -- > Jonathan Chen <jonc at chen.org.nz> > ....Indeed: the above-described behavior is what I have observed so far since the transition (tracking head & stable/12 daily on two machines). I would go a bit further than stating that the prior behavior was "nice." Peace, david -- David H. Wolfskill david at catwhisker.org "Dismissing reality doesn't make it go away." - Rajiv Shah, Rockefeller Foundation president See https://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 618 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20201225/98196114/attachment.sig>
On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 04:18:22 -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:>On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 10:00:57PM +1300, Jonathan Chen wrote: >> Hi Kyle, >> >> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 15:05, Kyle Evans <kevans at freebsd.org> wrote: >> ... >> > mergemaster only uses it as an optimization, if they're unexpanded >> > throughout then it falls back to diff(1) -- i.e. it's slower without. >> >> Thanks for the answer. >> >> However, wouldn't this mean that every run of "mergemaster" would >> prompt for local changes? The nice thing about using the $FreeBSD$ >> tags was that if I approved a local-change, subsequent runs of >> mergemaster would not prompt me about the local-change unless the >> etc-file had been modified in the source tree. >> >> Cheers. >> -- >> Jonathan Chen <jonc at chen.org.nz> >> .... > >Indeed: the above-described behavior is what I have observed so far >since the transition (tracking head & stable/12 daily on two machines). > >I would go a bit further than stating that the prior behavior was >"nice."The only way forward is full git! Provide the /etc equivalent in a git branch or subdir, then check it out to /etc and handle local changes with git rebase or git merge. (I'm not even joking! :) Cheers Uli