On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > Antoine Pelisse <[email protected]> writes: > >> And I >> have the feeling that "merge-fix/B" or "merge-fix/A" doesn't hold >> enough information to do that accurately. > > Oh, you do not have to resort to feeling; these names do _not_ hold > enough information, period. We already know that, that was why I was > unhappy, and that was why I sent the "annotating a pair of commit > objects" RFD in the first place ;-).
:) >> The idea is then to store the <A, B> pair as a note, and to associate >> a "merge" to that (solving the semantic conflict). > > OK, and as the datastore for <A, B> pair you were thinking about > using a specially-formatted blob and Johan suggested to use a > regular tree object? Exactly. But as I said, it should associate the pair to a merge. And trees contain other trees or blobs, not commits. I'm wondering if this is a problem. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
