From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Reference technical/trivial-merge.txt in git-read-tree documentation Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:16:07 -0800 Message-ID: <7v1x11dc6g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20051111205140.5719.68724.stgit@machine.or.cz> <20051127124108.GB22159@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 27 22:17:32 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EgTsb-0003wW-Ca for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 22:16:13 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751098AbVK0VQK (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:16:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751141AbVK0VQK (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:16:10 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao04.cox.net ([68.230.241.35]:53422 "EHLO fed1rmmtao04.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751098AbVK0VQJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:16:09 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051127211451.VTPQ17690.fed1rmmtao04.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 16:14:51 -0500 To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20051127124108.GB22159@pasky.or.cz> (Petr Baudis's message of "Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:41:08 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis writes: > Dear diary, on Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:51:40PM CET, I got a letter > where Petr Baudis said that... >> That file, with the so valuable (and so confusing) tables describing >> the precise resolution rules git-read-tree follows, silently sat in >> the corner and almost noone knew about it (well, I didn't, at least). >> This references it from the git-read-tree documentation, so that there >> is some chance that interested people will find it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Petr Baudis > > Any gripes, or just forgotten? What happened was that I thought I'd apply after rewording the sarcasm and maybe moving the existing table to the one in technical/ (or just removing the old table), and forgot about it. One thing I do not like the table in technical/ is that it is harder to read as the "case table" than the original. Admittedly, it is meant to describe more complex situation, so it _is_ harder to understand, but a major difference is that the original table was designed to decribe things orthogonally and you did not have to read from top to bottom (any situation would have fallen in one case no matter what order you checked the condition for each case), while the updated table in technical/ _must_ be read from top to bottom and take the first match, and that was what made me feel reluctant to remove the existing one from the original document.