问题
I've been a user of UltraCompare Pro since it first came out, and I think it's a very full-featured compare and merge tool. However, since I have been looking more closely into DVCS, I found that it handles three-way merges differently than (most?) other tools out there. So I wonder why that is, and whether I'm missing something because of it.
In UltraCompare, there are three merge panels (let's call them base, local and other). All the merge action happens within these panels. In practice, this means that I do my work on the middle pane (local), merging changes from the right (other) or maybe from the common ancestor on the left (base). The middle pane is modified during the session and then saved - and committed as the result of the merge. The fourth pane (Output window) only contains information about the diff result.
(source: ultraedit.com)
In other tools, it appears that the three panes only exist in a read-only state, and that the fourth, bottom pane (output) is the place where all the merging happens. What are the reasons to have an extra merge window? Is it easier to keep track of all the changes? Or is it just like that because everybody has always been doing it this way, so we're copying that behavior? What's your opinion on this?
(source: hginit.com)
I'm not sure whether there exists a best or correct answer, so I haven't yet made this question CW, but I'll defer to your opinion here as well.
回答1:
Seems straightforward to me, you might very well want to keep an unchanged ‘local’ version visible when you are making your changes.
original local other merged
bar= foo+1 bar= foo+2 bof= foo+2
zot= foo+1
... ... ... ...
print foo print bar print foo+1 print bar??
Both local and other have introduced a new variable bar. Merge the first change to bof/zot, go for a cup of tea, come back and try to merge the print. Wait, what was bar in local? If the original local isn't there, that information's gone, and you're scrabbling about with another text editor to work out what's happened.
This is a contrived example but this sort of thing can easily happen for any set of changes you can't keep all in your head and do in one go. In general, a 3WM always has two variable elements, change A and change B. To reproduce all the information in that, you need four views for all the possible permutations of: 0 (the original), A, B, and AB (the merge).
回答2:
Project: Merge is a comparison and merge tool I've written for XML. I looked at the standard 4-pane approach and almost instantly discarded it as being a very wasteful way of displaying data. A point amply proven in the screenshots above where nearly all panes are showing exactly the same data multiple times.
I therefore developed a single pane approach for displaying all input files and showing which of them contributes to the output. (Or where the differences are when comparing files.) While I haven't allowed completely free form editing of text (mostly due to how the XML nodes are managed and referenced) some parts of the merge output can be edited more or less as you would in a regular text editor. (My editor keyboard shortcuts closely follow those of Visual Studio as far as navigation is concerned.) Most notably character data, comments, and attribute values. You can also cut and paste XML nodes in their entirety. (But obviously only as text to external applications.)
The following screenshot shows a three-way merge with most changes appearing in the 'left' file, and an unresolved conflict below the selected change:
回答3:
Personally, I like the free perforce merge tool (p4merge). It also has 4 windows - top middle for the original (before branching), left for destination branch, right for source branch and the bottom part is editable.
I like this better than your option 1, as all 3 original files may have important information that can influence the merge.
回答4:
There are basically two ways to display differences between two files:
- Two panels side by side
- One panel
Graphically:
aaa aaa
bbb ···
··· ccc
ddd ddd
and
aaa
-bbb
+ccc
ddd
Some program use the first one (e.g. WinMerge) and some programs allow to choose (e.g. TortoiseMerge or Google Project Hosting). It's probably a matter of taste but I find the second one more intuitive when you want to track changes. However, you need two panels when you want to edit changes.
When doing three-way merges, the different layouts come from this. Ultra compare uses the single panel approach to display changes so you get two panels plus a third panel to edit. Other programs use the two panel approach to display changes so you get three panels plus a fourth one for edits.
Again, I believe it's just a matter of taste.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2621475/three-way-merge-different-philosophies