Re: Sharing a massive distributed merge

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> It would be neat if the tree could somehow mark a bit for "this is
> unresolved". I guess we could shove it into a mode bit. But that seems
> like a waste of a mode bit for this one use case that doesn't come up
> all that often, and which doesn't _need_ to represent that information
> in-tree. The commit-message solution would work perfectly fine.

Just adding the blob with the whole glory of <<</>>> markers would be
better than recording --ours or --theirs.  Deleting might be a workaround
that would work better in practice as somebody already mentioned, though.

I agree that message is an essential part of the communication medium to
coordinate this kind of workflow.  It is not like the downstream is a dumb
machinery that blindly grab and overlay the partial merge results that can
only read from tree objects and not commit messages.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]