From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: clarify local/remote terminology
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:41:55 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080301044155.GA9010@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v3arcfh54.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 09:47:35PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While I like the fact that somebody is trying to tackle the
> consistency issue, I do not like the approach itself. Fudging
> the issue at the merge-tool UI level may make things appear more
> consistent when viewing the merge from within merge-tool, but it
> makes the views merge-tool gives and vi/less gives inconsistent.
>
> It would be a lot more sensible to make sure that we always show
> the side that the end-user modified first and then the side the
> other party changed.
I hadn't considered that, because I never pay attention to the order of
changes between the conflict markers; I look at the nice "HEAD" and
"abcdef... commit subject" messages.
But then I don't do a lot of conflict resolution. Usually I either work
with tiny teams on a central-ish repository, or work on projects where I
am just a contributor.
So I agree that a consistent view makes sense, and I can see that
ordering of hunks is a sensible context clue. However, should this not
extend further, to the index numbering? Or do we not care, because
mortals rarely touch the index? What about "git-rebase --strategy=ours",
which really means "theirs"?
Unfortunately just swapping the arguments to git-merge-* in
git-rebase.sh doesn't quite work ("merge-ours" doesn't actually load the
index and say "pick the 'ours' stage"; it just says "whatever is in the
working tree is fine.").
-Peff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-01 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-21 5:12 [RFC/PATCH] mergetool: clarify local/remote terminology Jay Soffian
2008-02-25 14:31 ` Jay Soffian
2008-02-25 18:46 ` Jeff King
2008-02-25 19:07 ` Jay Soffian
2008-02-25 19:21 ` Jeff King
2008-02-25 20:09 ` Jay Soffian
2008-02-25 20:11 ` Jeff King
2008-02-28 8:43 ` Jeff King
2008-02-29 5:47 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-03-01 4:41 ` Jeff King [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080301044155.GA9010@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jaysoffian@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).