From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Herland Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/18] git notes merge Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:04:13 +0200 Message-ID: <201009291804.13404.johan@herland.net> References: <1285719811-10871-1-git-send-email-johan@herland.net> <201009291716.52831.johan@herland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, bebarino@gmail.com, gitster@pobox.com To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Sep 29 18:05:29 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P0z9m-0001Y1-2L for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:05:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753634Ab0I2QFN (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:05:13 -0400 Received: from smtp.opera.com ([213.236.208.81]:33595 "EHLO smtp.opera.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752162Ab0I2QFM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:05:12 -0400 Received: from johanh.eng.oslo.osa (pat-tdc.opera.com [213.236.208.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5+lenny1) with ESMTP id o8TG4DWi027444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:04:13 GMT User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wednesday 29 September 2010, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 17:16, Johan Herland wrote: > > Yeah, I'm torn as well. What about providing both? Or is that > > bloat? > > Definitely not both, that would be confusing, and would limit us if > we decide to add 'git merge --abort' later on. Yeah, but for consistency's sake I don't want to name it 'git notes merge --abort' if there's not a corresponding 'git merge --abort'. > >> I know that there's no 'git merge --abort', but IIRC that's for > >> technical reasons only. > > > > Maybe there _should_ be a 'git merge --abort' (as a synonym to 'git > > reset --merge')? > > Hmmm, I don't know if that does what the user wants, (I haven't used > 'git reset --merge' before), but if it does, that sounds like a good > solution. >>From git-merge(1): "If you tried a merge which resulted in complex conflicts and want to start over, you can recover with git reset --merge." AFAICS, there's no better candidate synonym for 'git merge --abort'. ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net