Catalin Marinas wrote: > On 16/11/05, Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> wrote: >>>Another option would be to >>>remove the file and leave both file.older and file.remote in the tree >>>(here .remote means the version in the patch) >> >>I remember that at times, but .remote is very confusing... I see that's the >>mishandling is induced by various sources, maybe including "merge" itself, >>but that program (and possibly others) supports changing the labels, and this >>should probably be done (using "original", "patched" and "upstream" >>probably). > > > I know that diff3/merge support labels. I don't exactly remember my > reasons but I think that I chose those namings because StGIT was > supporting another type of merge where "patched" etc. did not apply. > > I agree that we should change them. I would rather use "ancestor", > "patch" and "base" but I don't have a strong opinion. just a data point: i use "original" "patch" and "older" (set up in .stgitrc) because i found the default labels to be confusing. but "original" "patch" and "upstream" make sense to me. - 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.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-11-18 09:52:18 EST