From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] read-tree -m 3-way: handle more trivial merges internally Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:59:05 -0700 Message-ID: <7vekba7zli.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vis0o30sc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7voeagrp11.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v64woroui.fsf_-_@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vaclzclqd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 10 21:56:25 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dgpbi-00047Y-Sx for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 21:55:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261196AbVFJT72 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:59:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261205AbVFJT72 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:59:28 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:25044 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261196AbVFJT7L (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:59:11 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.60.172]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050610195906.CHUD19494.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:59:06 -0400 To: Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: <7vaclzclqd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:35:06 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "JCH" == Junio C Hamano writes: JCH> So, yes I ended up arguing that the intelligent merge logic JCH> could and probably needs to look at the trees involved ;-). "Could look at, and probably be better off looking at," would have been a better wording. Linus, please discard the patches from me that you have not applied about the "loosening of too strict index requirements" (yesterday and the day before). I think I am finally getting somewhere but the solution, if it works, would be somewhat different from what I have been sending you.