"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > (Is there any advantage, then, to the :n:filename syntax to a user? > Is it useful in any cases when they couldn't use HEAD or MERGE_HEAD > instead? If not I might be tempted to cut this bit entirely (or > postpone it till later.) I'm not sure, but I think that while HEAD and MERGE_HEAD vs :n: differ in the tree represented (in the index trivial / tree conflicts are resolved) they have the same file contents for conflicting files. I think that :n: syntax is just shorter, especially for the ancestor (c.f. $(git merge-base HEAD MERGE_HEAD)). And of course there is octopus merge to be considered... -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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
