On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:05:22AM -0400, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Oh, like say git-rebase. During a rebase "theirs" (stage 3) is > your file and "ours" (stage 2) is the upstream. Confusing now, > ain't it? Mine is theirs and ours is theirs? Huh? Yeeaaaah. Ugh, I hadn't even thought of that. git-diff _does_ respect "--base", "--ours", and "--theirs" to mean the same thing, but I am now wondering if that is a bit of a mistake. However, as the intent of my patch was to _increase_ usability, I think a gotcha like that is probably counterproductive. OTOH, users of git-rebase already have to make the switch mentally. > confusing the stages and getting them inverted. And this is exactly > why git-merge.sh/git-rebase.sh/git-am.sh try to setup GITHEAD_* for Yes, I agree that the GITHEAD markers are much more sensible. Unfortunately, I'm not sure of the best way to translate them into stage names. The MERGE_HEAD/HEAD suggestion you made is a nice way of avoiding the whole issue, though it doesn't easily provide the "base" version. > At least document the new syntax in git-rev-parse documentation? I was about to, but your message has convinced me that this is perhaps not a very good idea. -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
