On Aug 1, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Sam Vilain <s...@vilain.net> wrote:
> Git merge has a notion of discrete "merge strategies”.
> There's no particular reason that you couldn't implement a merge
> strategy which works more like SVN's approach, which essentially does an
> internal rebase and then commits the result.
Well, being a simple user, wanting to do a simple thing, I want the default
strategy to just work. The expert that wants it to work faster, but less well,
well, they can use a merge -s faster, or cherry-pick -s faster.
> However, there are corresponding disadvantages to this strategy. It's
> just as easy to contrive a situation where this "internal rebasing"
> doesn't do the right thing, even without cheating by getting the
> metadata wrong.
I sketched a solution using branches… A large portion of the failures that
happen when a cherry is remerged are gone. I feel that benefit easily swamps
the problem you sketched.
> And besides, there's already a way to do this: do an actual rebase.
One problem is that rebase doesn’t work with co-workers nicely… The other is
that it isn’t spelled merge. I am a simple user.
>> I was curious if svn handles this better the same or worse, and it did it
>> just fine. I know that a while ago, svn could not handle this, it would do
>> what git does currently. Apparently they figured out it was a bug and fixed
>> it. Have you guys figured out it is a bug yet? The first step in solving a
>> problem, is admitting you have a problem.
> So, I have to chuckle when I read this indignant comment.
:-) Yeah, a chuckle, good. Actually, no anger is involved. I’d just like for
git to work better in this regard.--
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