From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F021AC433DB for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 22:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DFC23381 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 22:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726431AbhAUWu6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:58 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:52386 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725268AbhAUWu5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:57 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B405E106D86; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=1AI6KJJWNE4ny8TGR6JEw+eB0uM=; b=Y5u1AB G9vrH0Rvb75WjeQ0heyAcanS/Mj96M280KHQ/tVCsrh1vZArmuqa8/ml4QAD0mPp Pd1TbkwYyHUUulPLVKgal1FDiM4VN3ViSfR4aZoMPDkr1Kpz8gJSGbnJsgOvphkI mBjU0704LZd+CVtghOkrzQk3XWOQtaBHrtuYo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=F2L6R4aFPZG7krcoDbn5xv/06dwAN8/F 9tqa5uAQ04lybx9V2Im6KWGzmkRkH1t1oS09sWwWJKM4M2JUCvTfVFMsAQdwYb6b RxcNp7n3OL1wMphtxeH1LwYN6l/LpuU+7eucjXQr81eJvpoGv6otLenUuRJQngjt gJWiNeCPFD8= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1072106D85; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.196.36.241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA071106D84; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:50:13 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Seth House Cc: David Aguilar , Felipe Contreras , "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: automerge implementation ideas for Windows References: <20210109224236.50363-1-davvid@gmail.com> <20210109225400.GA156779@ellen> <20210110072902.GA247325@ellen> <20210116042454.GA4913@ellen> <20210120232447.GA35105@ellen> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 14:50:12 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20210120232447.GA35105@ellen> (Seth House's message of "Wed, 20 Jan 2021 16:24:47 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0609F256-5C3B-11EB-A19D-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Seth House writes: > One other point of discussion: I would like to change the name of this > feature. "Automerge" is a bit of an overloaded term and, IMO, doesn't > describe this feature very well. Several of the GUI diff programs have > a feature that they call "automerge" or "auto merge", and there's a flag > for Meld already in Git called "mergetool.meld.useAutoMerge" which could > cause confusion. > > Instead, I'd like to propose "mergetool.hideResolved" or the more > verbose "mergetool.hideResolvedConflicts" as the name. We're not really > merging anything (Git aleady did that before the mergetool is invoked), > but rather we're just not showing any conflicts that Git was already > able to resolve. I have no objetion. I didn't think 'automerge' was bad, but it probably is too broad a word as you discuss in the above. "hide resolved" sounds like the name that describes what it does quite well. > #1: Use POSIX read and a while loop to emulate an awk-like approach: I'd rather not to see us do "text processing" in shell, especially with "read -r". I just do not trust it (even with the "-r" option). Having said that, I am not familiar enough to the Windows environment to know what is trustworthy and what is not (apparently, things like "sed" that I would intuitively place as much trust as anything else is giving us so much trouble out of box), so I'll shut up and listen to others.