Re: [PATCH 6/8] apply: fall back on three-way merge

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

 



On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:06:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> > Is it true that there is no point in doing a 3-way fallback when
> > patch->is_binary? What if the user has a custom merge driver?
> > ...
> > It seems like we should just keep the logic here as stupid as possible,
> 
> Actually, the motivation behind that "No point" is to keep the logic as
> stupid as possible.
> [...]
> I can buy that lifting "must not be binary" would be very cheap, but
> adding support for new/delete case would mean the index-stuffing part
> needs to gain more code, so removing the "not new, not delete"
> conditionals actually goes against keeping the logic as stupid as
> possible.

Fair enough. It's by far the minority case, so we can wait until
it is somebody's itch to scratch.

-Peff
--
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]