From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Bailey Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Teach git mergetool to use custom commands defined at config time Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:41:50 +0000 Message-ID: <20080217234150.GB6249@hashpling.org> References: <20080216185349.GA29177@hashpling.org> <20080217002029.GA504@hashpling.org> <20080217005620.GB504@hashpling.org> <7vbq6g758h.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080217214942.GJ8905@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Steffen Prohaska , Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Git Mailing List To: Theodore Tso X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 18 00:42:54 2008 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 1JQt9q-0002Gf-2t for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:42:54 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755159AbYBQXmT (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:42:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755161AbYBQXmT (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:42:19 -0500 Received: from pih-relay08.plus.net ([212.159.14.134]:53562 "EHLO pih-relay08.plus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755159AbYBQXmT (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:42:19 -0500 Received: from [212.159.69.125] (helo=hashpling.plus.com) by pih-relay08.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JQt8u-0005ek-S5; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:41:57 +0000 Received: from fermat.hashpling.org (fermat.hashpling.org [127.0.0.1]) by hashpling.plus.com (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1HNfpXS007273; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:41:51 GMT Received: (from charles@localhost) by fermat.hashpling.org (8.13.8/8.13.6/Submit) id m1HNfoZU007272; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:41:50 GMT Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080217214942.GJ8905@mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Plusnet-Relay: 0bdf232e3295be55d0541da28376d4c2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 04:49:42PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > I have no objection to a generic mechanism, but I don't see the value > of Charles suggestion to rip out support for the existing tools > supported by git-mergetool. Apologies for the multiple replies, I just remembered that I didn't comment on this part. My suggestion was really just me thinking aloud ("one idea I had..."). I was only stating that it would be possible to do this, there's no value in actually doing this on its own, but the thought exercise helped me validate my patch (at least to myself). If my patch were flexible enough to handle all of the current built-in tools in a generic fashion then it is a good sign that it should be able to cope with a good portion of (as yet) unknown merge tools which is, after all, the main point of my patch. Charles.