Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>: > Well, for one thing, I do not believe in their cause. As I wrote in the > log messages for these commits (actually not these above which is a series > for merge fixup, but the other topic), I do not think it is a sensible > thing to say "let's take as much automerge results as possible to salvage > our changes where they do not overlap with what the upstream did, but I > would give up our changes to places that the upstream also touched, > because I do not understand what they did well enough to be able to > resolve the merge conflicts correctly", and "merge -Xtheirs" is exactly > that. I do not know if "I do not understand what they did well enough" is the only reason people would want to use that feature. Isn't it better to let people decide that for themselves? > That also was the reason I did not add any documentation to it. But I do > like the change to the infrastructure to allow passing strategy-specific > options through git-merge and git-pull. Perhaps I should write something > up, if only to salvage that -X<option> part, even though I am very much > inclined to discard -Xtheirs (and -Xours) part. I think such a documentation will help people to decide if 'theirs' option makes sense for their workflow. -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/ -- 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
