From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [RFC] ll-merge: Normalize files before merging Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:51:41 +0200 Message-ID: <4C11EB0D.20208@viscovery.net> References: <1276202894-11805-1-git-send-email-eyvind.bernhardsen@gmail.com> <4C11CE75.7080706@viscovery.net> <4C11E717.4070508@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Eyvind Bernhardsen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 11 09:52:05 2010 connect(): No such file or directory 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 1OMz24-0002my-4X for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:52:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758079Ab0FKHvq (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:51:46 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:15710 "EHLO lilzmailso01.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753432Ab0FKHvp (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 03:51:45 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso01.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMz1i-0008MQ-G4; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:51:42 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC901660F; Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:51:42 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 In-Reply-To: <4C11E717.4070508@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 6/11/2010 9:34, schrieb Eyvind Bernhardsen: > On 11. juni 2010 07:49, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> I think you are going overboard here. Normalization should only happen >> only for data that moves from the worktree to the database. But during a >> merge, at most one part can come from the worktree, methinks; you are >> normalizing all three of them, though. > > Well, that's sort of the point. All three are normalized to (hopefully) > minimize the differences between them, increasing the chance of a > successful merge. I know what your point is. It is still inappropriate to call normalize_file() on data that comes from the repository. It is not the task of a merge procedure to blindly normalize data. -- Hannes