David Aguilar wrote: > On 0, David Aguilar <davvid@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It /seems/ like the docs and completion should be updated. > > Though my guess is as good as any.... > I'd rather hear someone else's opinion. > > $ git log -p 44c36d1c > commit 44c36d1ccc9a40bfb31910dfd7e18d59fa8be502 > Author: Charles Bailey <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu Feb 21 23:30:02 2008 +0000 > > Tidy up git mergetool's backup file behaviour > > Currently a backup pre-merge file with conflict markers is sometimes > kept with a .orig extenstion and sometimes removed depending on the > particular merge tool used. > > This patch makes the handling consistent across all merge tools and > configurable via a new mergetool.keepBackup config variable > > Signed-off-by: Charles Bailey <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> > > > The commit comment says mergetool.keepBackup, even though the code always > had it as merge.keepBackup. > > $ git log -p 7e30682c > > Right now more people have merge.keepbackup already set since git-gui > has had it that way for the last 7 months or so. Nevertheless, > Shawn's already applied the git-gui patch which hints that maybe > we should just make the code match the docs. In which case, a > patch against pu would be a good thing, but I would like to > hear someone else's opinion just so that you don't waste time > going down the wrong route. > agree -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html