Dear diary, on Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:35:43AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that... > Oh, the git merge is about a million times better than any silly weave > merge with extra BonusPoints and MagicCapitalizedNames. > > Why? Because if you want to be slow and careful, you can always just > create the weave after-the-fact and do a weave merge. This doesn't make sense. Those silly weave merges only describe what to do with the weave to do the merge, not how you got the weave in the first place. > So we should spend time on making it easy to see what the clash was, and > on tools to help resolve them. Some random merge-strategy-of-the-day is > just bling-bling. The *primary* reason for new merge strategies is not reducing number of conflicts, but actually being able to force a conflict at places where it isn't crystal-clear what the resolution should be (but not conflicting where it should be clear), and especially at places where the three-way merge *silently* gets it *wrong* without throwing any conflicts. And weren't it you who wanted a conservative merge strategy which wouldn't ever do that? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which it doesn't. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Mon Oct 24 17:55:07 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-10-24 17:55:11 EST