[PATCH] Documentation: mention how to define multiple strategies

[PATCH] Documentation: mention how to define multiple strategies

[Miklos Vajna]

pull.twohead and pull.octopus supports multiple default strategies but
this was undocumented and it was not obvious how to do so.

Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>
---
 Documentation/config.txt |    4 +++-
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/config.txt b/Documentation/config.txt
index 217980f..8a4abb2 100644
--- a/Documentation/config.txt
+++ b/Documentation/config.txt
@@ -924,10 +924,12 @@ pack.packSizeLimit::
 
 pull.octopus::
 	The default merge strategy to use when pulling multiple branches
-	at once.
+	at once. Multiple strategies can be defined using a space
+	separated list.
 
 pull.twohead::
 	The default merge strategy to use when pulling a single branch.
+	Multiple strategies can be defined using a space separated list.
 
 remote.<name>.url::
 	The URL of a remote repository.  See linkgit:git-fetch[1] or
-- 
1.5.5

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: mention how to define multiple strategies

[Junio C Hamano]

Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:

> pull.twohead and pull.octopus supports multiple default strategies but
> this was undocumented and it was not obvious how to do so.

It indeed is supported to give multiple strategies and let "git merge" try
each of them.

However, I have a very strong doubt if it is really worth keeping the
support, let alone advertising it.

Really.  It was a fun experiment while it was being invented, but I never
saw any practical usefulness with it.

Re: [PATCH] Documentation: mention how to define multiple strategies

[Miklos Vajna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 04:44:01PM -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> It indeed is supported to give multiple strategies and let "git merge" try
> each of them.
> 
> However, I have a very strong doubt if it is really worth keeping the
> support, let alone advertising it.
> 
> Really.  It was a fun experiment while it was being invented, but I never
> saw any practical usefulness with it.

As a general rule, I try to change nothing while working on
builtin-merge. Should I drop support for it (making an exception here),
or will you accept tests for this, just you would like to exclude it
from documentation?

Thanks.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]