On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 12:12 PM Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.email> wrote:
> On 11/04/2020 22:40, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > Am 11.04.20 um 14:51 schrieb rupert THURNER:
> >> my brain about it sometimes. can i somehow configure git so it
> >> would use "mine" and "theirs" only?
> > The words "mine" (actually "ours") and "theirs" have a very precise
> > meaning in Git. If you were to use these meanings during a rebase, you
> > would not like the result: it would call "ours" what you intend to call
> > "theirs", and vice versa.
> >
> > Consider this history:
> >
> >
> > --a--b--c--d <-- upstream ("theirs" from your point of view)
> > \
> > x--y--z <-- branch to rebase ("mine/ours" from your POV)
> >
> > During a rebase, Git is "positioned" on the history following commit d,
> > i.e. on "their" branch. Then it cherry-picks commits x, y, and z. In
> > that situation, the change that you consider "theirs" is actually "ours"
> > from Git's point of view, and your own change (those introduced by x, y,
> > and z) are "theirs" from Git's point of view.
thank you for the nice explanation! there would be no easy
way to swap the names in the rebase case? or introduce
a new one, "mine"?
> given the way Git is using it's terminology, would you have any
> suggestions as to how the man page(s) could now be _clarified_ so as to
> avoid these potential misunderstandings? Even perhaps
> "theirs", "ours", "local" and "remote" are distinct terms in Git
> with different meanings as detailed in gitreference/glossary. (or some
> such - though 3/4 are not in the glossary!)
philip, maybe phrase it as johannes did, add it to the man pages
of rebase, and mergetool? the change you consider "theirs" is
actually "ours", swapped for technical reasons when rebasing.
rupert
