Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 22:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Mhhh, but the proposed strategy there was in response to the 'insane'
>>> git-merge-theirs version, not to the 'exact opposite of
>>> git-merge-ours' that I refer to now, yes?
>>
>> No.
>
> Nanako Shiraishi's patch was not in response to the "git-merge-theirs"
> thread, or I am missing something here....?

The quoted sentence by me in that message was after I explained why "per
hunk theirs" aka "-Xtheirs" was not such a great idea I further went on to
say "by the way, '-s theirs' is even worse and here is why".

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux