From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: Newbie question regarding 3way merge order. Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:21:24 +0100 Message-ID: <4987F074.9040506@viscovery.net> References: <871vulda2r.fsf@gigli.quasi.internal> <7vskmyt127.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <871vugc2c8.fsf@gigli.quasi.internal> <49871ADA.4080905@viscovery.net> <87wsc8aenx.fsf@gigli.quasi.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 03 08:22:59 2009 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 1LUFcY-00059f-G9 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:22:58 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751738AbZBCHVc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 02:21:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750852AbZBCHVc (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 02:21:32 -0500 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:26011 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750835AbZBCHVb (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Feb 2009 02:21:31 -0500 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LUFb6-0002tp-Ln for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:21:29 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.96]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5046C4 for ; Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:21:24 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) In-Reply-To: <87wsc8aenx.fsf@gigli.quasi.internal> X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Again: Don't set Mail-Followup-To and keep the Cc list if you want to communicate efficiently on this list. Raimund Berger schrieb: > Are you sure you're not making assumptions about "obvious" manual > resolutions? E.g. I can't quite see how A+B, which is > > g(a)---- > / \ > f(a) g(a)f(b) or f(a)f(b) ??? > \ / > f(a)f(b) > > would not be flagged as a conflict regarding f(a) vs. g(a). My introductory sentence was probably not clear enough. I meant: mergebase A B A+B f g f g ( ( ( ( a a a a ) ) ) ) f f ( ( b b ) ) There is no conflict in A+B. But strctly speaking, this could be regarded as an ambiguous merge since the change f->g could be applied to two places. But if context is taken into consideration, then there is no conflict in practice. > And that's why I specifically "limited" my equality relation to > automatic resolutions, to simplify the discussion and deal with kind of > minimum requirements first. I didn't even mention that originally > because I felt it was so obvious. Yes, it was so obvious, that I thought my statement about "colums are lines" and "saving vertical space" were obvious, too. -- Hannes