From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Strange merge conflicts against earlier merge. Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:39:28 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy83ukdwf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <46a038f90511091638k726d605r170717539225a712@mail.gmail.com> <20051111075257.GA4765@c165.ib.student.liu.se> <20051111114511.GQ30496@pasky.or.cz> <7v64qzozyx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20051111173239.GU16061@pasky.or.cz> <7v1x1nni78.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20051111215620.GX16061@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 Fri Nov 11 23:42:33 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eahas-0005aE-7R for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:42:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751293AbVKKWlr (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:41:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751283AbVKKWjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:39:39 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:918 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751286AbVKKWjb (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:39:31 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051111223823.GSLK24014.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:38:23 -0500 To: Petr Baudis , Daniel Barkalow In-Reply-To: <20051111215620.GX16061@pasky.or.cz> (Petr Baudis's message of "Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:56:20 +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: > 16 anc1/anc2 anc1 anc2 no merge > > What ends up in the index at this moment as "stage 1"? anc1? anc2? > Two stage 1 entries? And what does git-merge-index do about this? I think we decided there is no single sensible resolution, and we leave stage 1 empty. Come to think of it, we should signal that we are punting by either exiting non-zero, or stuffing 0{40} SHA1 in stage1, so that we can distinguish the case with two sides adding things differently. Daniel, what do you think?