From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt McCutchen Subject: Re: Is XDL_MERGE_ZEALOUS too zealous (or maybe not zealous enough)? Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:42:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1224474120.19785.3.camel@mattlaptop2.local> References: <1224377652.19061.12.camel@mattlaptop2.local> <7vhc785izq.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v3ais5hb3.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 20 08:51:04 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Krlfq-0005Jl-Vr for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:43:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751517AbYJTDmG (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:42:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751516AbYJTDmF (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:42:05 -0400 Received: from sd-green-bigip-83.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.83]:44175 "EHLO jankymail-a1.g.dreamhost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751496AbYJTDmF (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:42:05 -0400 Received: from [129.2.207.232] (ml2.student.umd.edu [129.2.207.232]) by jankymail-a1.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454EB98682; Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:42:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7v3ais5hb3.fsf_-_@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 (2.22.3.1-1.fc9) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 15:52 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > However, the usual simplified merge shows this (run "git checkout --merge > builtin-checkout.c" if you have done the above): > > <<<<<<< ours > /* --track without -b should DWIM */ > if (0 < opts.track && !opts.new_branch) { > const char *argv0 = argv[0]; > ... > opts.new_branch = argv0 + 1; > } > > if (opts.track == BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED) > opts.track = git_branch_track; > ======= > if (conflict_style) { > opts.merge = 1; /* implied */ > git_xmerge_config("merge.conflictstyle", conflict_style, NULL); > } > > if (!opts.new_branch && (opts.track != git_branch_track)) > die("git checkout: --track and --no-track require -b"); > >>>>>>> theirs > > Removing the two lines from the simplified "theirs" is not what I would > suggest (it would be actively wrong), but I wonder if we can do something > clever to help users with a merge like this. IMHO, the solution is just to use diff3 style. I never understood how I was supposed to intuit the correct result of a merge from the two sides without seeing the common ancestor, so I am glad to have the diff3 style working now. Matt