From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: clarify local/remote terminology Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:28 -0500 Message-ID: <20080228084328.GA18350@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <1203570776-62019-1-git-send-email-jaysoffian@gmail.com> <76718490802250631p262baf1bw23873e5fdbbb7180@mail.gmail.com> <20080225184648.GC15131@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jay Soffian X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 28 09:44:22 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JUeND-000055-Rw for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:44:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754234AbYB1Inc (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753987AbYB1Inb (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:31 -0500 Received: from 66-23-211-5.clients.speedfactory.net ([66.23.211.5]:3251 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754201AbYB1Inb (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:31 -0500 Received: (qmail 19736 invoked by uid 111); 28 Feb 2008 08:43:29 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with SMTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:29 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:43:28 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080225184648.GC15131@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:46:48PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jay Soffian wrote: > > > Always calling the thing on the left-side of a merge "local" and on the > > > right side "remote" isn't correct. You could be rebasing, in which case > > > the left side is the new base/upstream and the right side is the saved > > > commits which are being re-applied. So, > > I'll try out your patch and comment next time I use it. I finally got a chance to use this today (hey, I don't get a lot of conflicts!). I like it; I think it made it a lot more obvious which side was which during the rebase. I checked with cherry-pick, as well; it more or less makes sense, except that the cherry-picked commit is called "upstream." Which sort of makes sense, but it would be nice to call it something more obvious. Unfortunately I'm not sure that there is a good way to determine we are in a failed cherry-pick (probably a failed 'revert' is in a similar situation). So like I said before, I think the eventual "right" thing is to have a more verbose status file. But in the meantime, I think this patch is sensible. -Peff