From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stgit - gitmergeonefile.py: handle removal vs. changes Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:50:49 -0500 Organization: Network Appliance, Inc. Message-ID: <437D0949.3060505@citi.umich.edu> References: <20051113194225.20447.57910.stgit@zion.home.lan> <200511161544.13825.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Reply-To: cel@citi.umich.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------010806000101070406070401" Cc: Blaisorblade , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 17 23:53:49 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EcsbN-0007O6-HT for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:51:33 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964879AbVKQWuv (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:50:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964874AbVKQWuv (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:50:51 -0500 Received: from citi.umich.edu ([141.211.133.111]:54853 "EHLO citi.umich.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964848AbVKQWuu (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:50:50 -0500 Received: from [141.211.133.33] (dexter.citi.umich.edu [141.211.133.33]) by citi.umich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750B71BAD1; Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:50:49 -0500 (EST) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Catalin Marinas In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010806000101070406070401 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 16/11/05, Blaisorblade wrote: >>>Another option would be to >>>remove the file and leave both file.older and file.remote in the tree >>>(here .remote means the version in the patch) >> >>I remember that at times, but .remote is very confusing... I see that's the >>mishandling is induced by various sources, maybe including "merge" itself, >>but that program (and possibly others) supports changing the labels, and this >>should probably be done (using "original", "patched" and "upstream" >>probably). > > > I know that diff3/merge support labels. I don't exactly remember my > reasons but I think that I chose those namings because StGIT was > supporting another type of merge where "patched" etc. did not apply. > > I agree that we should change them. I would rather use "ancestor", > "patch" and "base" but I don't have a strong opinion. just a data point: i use "original" "patch" and "older" (set up in .stgitrc) because i found the default labels to be confusing. but "original" "patch" and "upstream" make sense to me. --------------010806000101070406070401 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name="cel.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="cel.vcf" begin:vcard fn:Chuck Lever n:Lever;Charles org:Network Appliance, Incorporated;Linux NFS Client Development adr:535 West William Street, Suite 3100;;Center for Information Technology Integration;Ann Arbor;MI;48103-4943;USA email;internet:cel@citi.umich.edu title:Member of Technical Staff tel;work:+1 734 763 4415 tel;fax:+1 734 763 4434 tel;home:+1 734 668 1089 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.monkey.org/~cel/ version:2.1 end:vcard --------------010806000101070406070401--