On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Antoine Pelisse <apeli...@gmail.com> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to