On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Thomas Rast <trast@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I wonder if there are any really good justifications for changing the >> content, as distinct from the comments of a merge during an amendment? > > Semantic conflicts do not necessarily show up as > conflicts-to-be-resolved. The canonical example is when you change the > signature of a function on one side of the merge, and introduce new > callers on the other side. The merge must then patch all new callers > too. Fair enough - I was thinking that you could these with a commit after the merge, but I can see that's not the right thing to do, from a correctness point of view. jon. -- 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