Hi, On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, Thomas Rast wrote: > > > >> Using the "ours" strategy with rebase just discards all changes, > >> turning <branch> into <upstream> (or <newbase> if given). This is > >> unlikely to be what the user wants, so simply refuse to do it. > > > Besides, I find it rather arbitrary that the "ours" strategy is > > refused, but none of the user-provided merge strategies. IOW > > disallowing "ours" may very well foster unreasonable expectations. > > I cannot read this quite clearly. I meant the following: if "rebase -s ours" refuses to run, but my boss has written this cunning merge strategy "superduper" which is equally unlikely to yield a sensible result, "rebase -s superduper" should still refuse to run, no? Now, this scenario might be too rare to take care of, but maybe it shows that we have a design flaw here? Ciao, Dscho P.S.: Please note that I do not make a case against Thomas' patch series. As gitzilla once said "I cannot provide alternative patches, so that's that". -- 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