From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sverre Rabbelier" Subject: Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:48:08 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20080728181424.GM32057@genesis.frugalware.org> Reply-To: sverre@rabbelier.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Git Mailinglist" , "Johannes Schindelin" To: "Miklos Vajna" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 28 21:49:13 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KNYiW-0007qP-TV for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:49:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751677AbYG1TsM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:48:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751496AbYG1TsL (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:48:11 -0400 Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.29]:9483 "EHLO yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751431AbYG1TsK (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:48:10 -0400 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so1474979ywe.1 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:48:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=eicXjewHESmoO5eCS6zU/WUMFBewBr31fuwXqjRYucE=; b=RBQ3v3I0mp3UdCO2TXRgbIEk9gZ90fueDyHPpIuDT3t1NaHLCmCLJWUVHzqvT3StzY bfIbtusnvNG7aQk/GKx2SZA9KL2sH4BnS3BpfUM2RjUIKfBt15+FuaqNZn4CDMhVgXbr oOSK8cHIMvRYJEZqa132phMDG4NBdHTK/TGz0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=smts6jbm8SLrDt0eIzida80Xe1npxoJ3yxK3z3ZDrEdXE3C1Qy/JqXmMAKyw4hBUaw PPZhARuYBcPxmIhj5gtZoz07NHf26/AtGvRk2PzyfAMj1SCzv5f78SjtuREp3NCKXwe9 JMm7oBlLDkBP0UFPtEoOkKW+CsPESYsOZMqOU= Received: by 10.142.246.19 with SMTP id t19mr1742786wfh.55.1217274488637; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.104.10 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:48:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20080728181424.GM32057@genesis.frugalware.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 20:14, Miklos Vajna wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: >> So, in short: what does the list think about adding >> "git-merge-theirs", that does (although possibly less 'hackish'): >> >> cat > git-merge-theirs << EOF >> #!/bin/sh >> eval git read-tree --reset -u \\\$\$# >> EOF > > Isn't this the stupid one? No, the stupid one did "take all non-conflicting hunks from our side, and any for conflicting hunks, take theirs", which was rather silly I must say, although I have heard one use-cases where it makes sense (no I don't think we should have a git-merge-theirs-on-conflict). > It's perfect for my testing needs, but this is not something that people > should ever use on a real repo. What about the use-case I described in my first mail? -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier