Re: Meld 1.7.1 released

[Kai Willadsen <kai willadsen gmail com>]

On 3 April 2013 06:06, Angel Ezquerra <angel ezquerra gmail com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Kai Willadsen <kai willadsen gmail com> wrote:
> > On 3 April 2013 02:01, Keegan Witt <keeganwitt gmail com> wrote:
> > > I exceeded my Dropbox public folder limits, the new home for them is here:
> > > https://meld-installer.googlecode.com/files/meld-0.0.0.0.exe
> > > https://meld-installer.googlecode.com/files/meld-0.0.0.0.zip
> > > I'll keep these around permanently and periodically update them with the
> > > latest from Git master.  I include the .git directory, so you can do a git
> > > pull on the meld directory at any time if you want to update it yourself.
> > >
> > > This seems like an important issue to get fixed.  Do you think it'd be
> > > appropriate to push out another release sooner rather than later?
> >
> > Yeah, could do. I'll see if I can find time this weekend for it. For
> > that to happen, I'd appreciate any testing that people might want to
> > throw at current git. Several Windows-related fixes went in over the
> > weekend for Git actions, temp files and executable locating, and it
> > would be nice if they worked for someone other than me.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Kai
>
> There is a serious issue on Windows that we've been discussing on the
> mercurial-devel mailing list, which is that meld returns 0 even if you
> do not save the merge output (i.e. if the merge fails). This makes
> mercurial believe that the merge was successful when it isn't.
>
> For now we are thinking of enabling mercurial's "checkchanged" option
> for meld, which means that mercurial will check if the merge output
> changed once meld exits, and ask the user if the merge failed if it
> did not. That is a band-aid though, so improvements on that area would
> be really great.
>
> I think Keegan is aware of that issue. Something related to portable python?

Not a portable python problem I think. We don't ever (to my
recollection) change return values. I'm not sure that it makes sense
to do so either, since there's no way to indicate multiple returns
(i.e., tabs 1 and 3 were saved but tab 2 wasn't). I realise that
launching multiple merges isn't a common case, but... it just feels
wrong to me.

Could you explain why you consider the checkchanged option to be a band-aid?

cheers,
Kai