On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > and that is where the gotcha comes -- what if "my" changes were already
> > published? then I would like to avoid the rebase, and would -s theirs
> > to choose "their" solution in favor of mine and be able to push so
> > others could still "fast-forward" to the new state.
> > So -- as to me it remains 'symmetric' ;)
> I do not necessarily agree. Once you decide that their history is
> the mainline, you'd rather want to treat your line of development as
> a side branch and make a merge in that direction, i.e. the first
> parent of the resulting merge is a commit on their history and the
> second parent is the last bad one of your history. So you would end
> up using "checkout their-history && merge -s ours your-history" to
> keep the first-parenthood sensible.
> And at that point, use of "-s ours" is no longer a workaround for
> lack of "-s theirs". It is a proper part of the desired semantics,
> i.e. from the point of view of the surviving canonical history line,
> you want to preserve what it did, nullifying what the other line of
> history did.
> So I still do not think the above scenario justifies "-s theirs".
ok, when you describe it like this (in my case I rarely cared about the
side of the merge), then indeed I might better do the entire dance with
git reset --hard theirstate; git merge -s ours HEAD@{1}
and live happily with the left side being the one always correct and
hide "my" mistakes ;) will keep it in mind
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Center for Open Neuroscience http://centerforopenneuroscience.org
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
