> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LT> Anyway, with the modified read-tree, as far as I can tell it will now
LT> merge all the cases where one side has done something to a file, and the
LT> other side has left it alone (or where both sides have done the exact same
LT> modi
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Having slept on it, I think I'll merge all the trivial cases that don't
> involve a file going away or being added. Ie if the file is in all three
> trees, but it's the same in two of them, we know what to do.
Junio, I pushed this out, along with
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> LT> NOTE NOTE NOTE! I could make "read-tree" do some of these nontrivial
> LT> merges, but I ended up deciding that only the "matches in all three
> LT> states" thing collapses by default.
>
> * Understood and agreed.
Having slept on it, I thin
> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LT> Damn, my cunning plan is some good stuff.
I really like this a lot. It is *so* *simple*, clear, flexible
and an example of elegance. This is one of the things I would
happily say "Sheesh! Why didn't *I* think of *THAT*
f
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Actually, it turns out that I have a cunning plan.
Damn, my cunning plan is some good stuff.
Or maybe it is _so_ cunning that I just confuse even myself. But it looks
like it is actually working, and that it allows pretty much instantaenous
mer
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> I'd take the hint, but I would say the current Perl version
> would be far more usable than the C version I would come up with
> by the end of this weekend because:
Actually, it turns out that I have a cunning plan.
I'm full of cunning plans, in f
> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LT> Just a heads-up - I'd really want to do the same thing to "merge-tree.c"
LT> too, but since you said that you were working on extending that to do
LT> recursion etc, I decided to hold off. So if you're working on it, maybe
LT> you can
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> the merge-trees I sent you earlier was expecting the old
> diff-tree behaviour, and I did not realize that I need an
> explicit -z flag now.
You didn't need one - I just didn't want to merge your "ls-tree" change
without making things be consis
8 matches
Mail list logo
