From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Merge-Recursive Improvements Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:39:43 +0100 Message-ID: <47B29EBF.7060607@viscovery.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Voltage Spike X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 13 08:40:43 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 1JPCES-0002nD-Og for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:40:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755057AbYBMHjr (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:39:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754718AbYBMHjr (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:39:47 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:10118 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754296AbYBMHjq (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:39:46 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1JPCD9-0006p0-RL; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:39:20 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D4E69F; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:39:44 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Voltage Spike schrieb: > Third, git doesn't appear to have any sense of context when performing a > merge. Another contrived example which wouldn't be flagged as a merge > conflict: > > ptr = malloc(len); // Added in HEAD. > init(); // Included in merge-base. > ptr = malloc(len); // Added in "merge". You seem to say that you want this to result in a merge conflict. I'm opposed to this: It means that you would mark a conflict if there is a single unchanged line between the two changes that come from the merged branches. So far it has happened for me much more frequently that such merges were correct, and I should not be bothered with conflict markers. I conciously prefer to pay the price that such a merge is incorrect on occasion. You also need to draw a border line: a single unchanged line between the changes? Or better also conflict at 2 lines? Or 3? -- Hannes