Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: >> Sergey Organov <sorga...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> You've already bit this poor thingy to death. Please rather try your >>> teeth on the proposed Trivial Merge (TM) method. >> >> Whatever you do, do *NOT* call any part of your proposal "trivial >> merge", unless you are actually using the term to mean what Git >> calls "trivial merge". The phrase has an established meaning in Git >> and your attempt to abuse it to mean something entirely different is >> adding unnecessary hindrance for other people to understand what you >> want to perform. > > Agreed, I think we need better terminology here, the current words for > (TM) are definitely *not* trivial merges. Same for "angel merge", I > don't think that term really works well either.
Agreed. How do we call a merge that introduces no differences on either side of the merge then? Is there some English for even more trivial than what Git calls "trivial merge"? -- Sergey
