On Sun, 2008-10-19 at 15:52 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> However, the usual simplified merge shows this (run "git checkout --merge
> builtin-checkout.c" if you have done the above):
>
> <<<<<<< ours
> /* --track without -b should DWIM */
> if (0 < opts.track && !opts.new_branch) {
> const char *argv0 = argv[0];
> ...
> opts.new_branch = argv0 + 1;
> }
>
> if (opts.track == BRANCH_TRACK_UNSPECIFIED)
> opts.track = git_branch_track;
> =======
> if (conflict_style) {
> opts.merge = 1; /* implied */
> git_xmerge_config("merge.conflictstyle", conflict_style, NULL);
> }
>
> if (!opts.new_branch && (opts.track != git_branch_track))
> die("git checkout: --track and --no-track require -b");
> >>>>>>> theirs
>
> Removing the two lines from the simplified "theirs" is not what I would
> suggest (it would be actively wrong), but I wonder if we can do something
> clever to help users with a merge like this.
IMHO, the solution is just to use diff3 style. I never understood how I
was supposed to intuit the correct result of a merge from the two sides
without seeing the common ancestor, so I am glad to have the diff3 style
working now.
Matt
--
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
