On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches
> whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to
> an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to
> take both histories into account.
> So I guess it is not such a great idea.

The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save
loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for
the latter.

Matt McClure
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