From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document what the stage numbers in the :$n:path syntax mean. Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 23:30:19 -0700 Message-ID: <7vveba90qs.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v1we5bvbw.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070814231422.GA10662@pe.Belkin> <7vps1paceh.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46C90C46.1030000@midwinter.com> <20070820055221.GA22993@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20070820060522.GA27913@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jeff King , Steven Grimm , Chris Shoemaker , git@vger.kernel.org, Alex Riesen , Johannes Schindelin To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 20 08:30:38 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IN0mY-0002Db-8r for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 08:30:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751080AbXHTGab (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:30:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751254AbXHTGaa (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:30:30 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:54136 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751070AbXHTGaa (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:30:30 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A3A1248C6; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:30:43 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070820060522.GA27913@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Mon, 20 Aug 2007 02:05:22 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: >> Am I the only one who messes this up? If not, patch is below. > > Maybe. ;-) > > I've memorized it long long ago. But my coworkers haven't and always > get it wrong, and look at me funny when I tell them "trust me, your > data is in stage 2 and theirs is in stage 3... because that's the > convention all of the tools you are using follows". I am not _opposed_ to :ours:$path syntax, but I suspect there is something else that is wrong if you need to use :$n:$path syntax that often. I have never been in a situation I had to say :base:$path, unless I am debugging the merge driver. So it is between :ours:$path and :theirs:$path. But aren't they by definition HEAD:$path and MERGE_HEAD:$path, which are far more descriptive?