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 21:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20080728185604.GA26322@sigill.intra.peff.net> Reply-To: sverre@rabbelier.nl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Jeff King" , "Git Mailinglist" , "Miklos Vajna" To: "Johannes Schindelin" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 28 21:53:46 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 1KNYmq-0000z2-RT for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:53:41 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752465AbYG1Twk (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:52:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752602AbYG1Twk (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:52:40 -0400 Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com ([209.85.200.174]:16864 "EHLO wf-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752400AbYG1Twj (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:52:39 -0400 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so5933965wfd.4 for ; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:52:39 -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=MHQw+DcdZzyY8KAaSKgiVGVNA/li92lcf6sYQ3NusEw=; b=mVf8D6+EDrxW4/pn7+GDg4WkPGsreauWBLQLGoi0sAWhwW1sAQPL+QQ+a69l6/UlSp hk52WoPiBDE7UCpc/Nr4ezgcu/ubSwZDQS4yPuPlefKYroH2tu8Z0pP64sAo5N6eJH7I 1KEMjJvXAwbk9Gasc9SmrXGyrdHfQ6fkvsHog= 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=cm5Gm6MpE6YpnW0dkh0u/kKuLxk/4EXzQ9QWQs8LdfcmwB87k54I+fLtwUQmTN6MUV Ev2fQvvw0bQdLHBBk7Mjd7VH+RpLPOgaMogB94KKxYkIJUkPETi4Sc93Q1sK/hrmvVr3 aiVi9OxfTA7S6/bfYdBVJWRUPCECy1Q+ajCeM= Received: by 10.142.232.20 with SMTP id e20mr1743201wfh.85.1217274758840; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.104.10 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:52:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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 21:09, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Well, I have to say that the workflow is a bit backwards if the person who > _publishes_ the thing is the one saying "Ooops, my version no goodie, > other version please, but so that pull still works". Why so? In this case the other branch was also owned by the publishing person. I don't quite follow how this is any stranger than ours? (Which is stranger to me, why would you want to merge in a branch if you're not going to do anything with it anyway? I'm sure there are valid workflows for it, which is why we have it, just saying that I think 'theirs' makes more sense to me than 'ours') > I would have expected the one who has the good version to make the choice. Why have the person with the good version merge with... a bad version? Isn't it usually "I will merge with you, because I know your branch makes things go twice as fast" (paraphrasing Linus from his git talk at google). -- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier