On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > > I was just doing an annoying merge (I'd reorganized code while other > > people made changes to it), and I kept having the problem that it was hard > > to figure out what each side had done. Is there some way to ask git for > > the diffs between the common ancestor (which is unique in my case, so it's > > actually useful) and each of the sides of the merge? Ideally, it would > > give essentially the converse of the --cc diff: first column is -stage 1 > > +stage 2; second column is -stage 1 +stage 3. > > Have you tried "gitk --merge [filename]"? > > That's usually even more useful - because it doesn't just give a diff, it > gives the actual commits that caused the conflict. That way you see what > both sides of a merge tried to do.. It's what I do when encountering > conflicts on the kernel (where I'm usually not the author of _either_ side > of the code that causes a conflict), and it really is very powerful. That is really nice, and quite handy. I ended up getting approximately that effect with blame and show, but gitk is much easier. For some reason, I never think of the graphical tools. Is there an easy way of focusing on the changes that end up in a particular conflict? Half of the work was finding the right commit and finding the right part of the diff. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- 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
