On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:45 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "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 am somewhat torn between the two. > > This section is only about merge conflicts, so using "checkout HEAD path" > would be a good substitute. The text flows better that way, because the > previous paragraph talks about HEAD and MERGE_HEAD. > > When people run "am -3", however, they may wish that they learned how the > notation to name blob objects in the index (e.g. :2:path) can be used to > examine and resolve the conflict, as there is no HEAD/MERGE_HEAD in that > usage context. Hi Junio, I was planning on specifically pointing out the :n: forms as well. So I'm watching this one a bit carefully and would appreciate a bit of long-term guidance on the issue here. Thanks, jdl -- 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
