From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: two-way merge corner case bug Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:08:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20130301230845.GA7317@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <7v7glun8kt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130226201820.GD13830@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vwqtulplp.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130301092201.GA17254@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7va9qngisg.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130301223612.GA862@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vppzien3i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 02 00:09:14 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UBZ4i-0005Fy-Ii for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:09:12 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751980Ab3CAXIs (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:08:48 -0500 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:39601 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751367Ab3CAXIr (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 18:08:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 4946 invoked by uid 107); 1 Mar 2013 23:10:23 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:10:23 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:08:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vppzien3i.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 03:06:57PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I can believe it. So do we want to do that fix, then? Did you want to > > roll up the two halves of it with a test and write a commit message? I > > feel like you could write a much more coherent one than I could on this > > subject. > > I actually was wondering if we can remove that sole uses of two-way > merge with --reset -u from "git am" and replace them with something > else. But we do want to keep local change that existed before "am" > started, so we cannot avoid use of two-way merge, I guess... Yeah, I think that is a case we definitely want to keep, as it means any intermediate work done by the user in applying the patch is not lost. -Peff