Dear diary, on Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:22:45AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > But otherwise it is great news to me. Actually, in that case, is it
> > worth renaming it to Cogito and using cg to i
One trick I've used to separate good automatic merges from ones that
need human interaction is to run both the 'patch' and 'merge' commands,
which use different approaches to determining the result.
If they agree, take it. To apply the changes between file1 and file2
to filez:
diff -au f
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > So you want to merge someone else's tree into your committed state, and
> > then merge the result with your working directory to get the working
> > directory you continue with, provided that the seco
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> So you want to merge someone else's tree into your committed state, and
> then merge the result with your working directory to get the working
> directory you continue with, provided that the second merge is trivial?
No, you don't even "merge" the
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> >
> > Is there some reason you don't commit before merging? All of the current
> > merge theory seems to want to merge two commits, using the information git
> > keeps about them.
>
> Note that the 3-way m
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> Is there some reason you don't commit before merging? All of the current
> merge theory seems to want to merge two commits, using the information git
> keeps about them.
Note that the 3-way merge would _only_ merge the committed state. The
thing
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I think I've explained my name tracking worries. When it comes to "how to
> merge", there's three issues:
>
> - we do commonly have merge clashes where both trees have applied the
>exact same patch. That should merge perfectly well using the 3-
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> But otherwise it is great news to me. Actually, in that case, is it
> worth renaming it to Cogito and using cg to invoke it? Wouldn't be that
> actually more confusing after it gets merged? IOW, should I stick to
> "git" or feel free to rename it to "c
> "CSA" == C Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CSA> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> to yours is no problem for me. Currently I see your HEAD is at
>> 461aef08823a18a6c69d472499ef5257f8c7f6c8, so I will generate a
>> set of patches against it.
CSA> Have you considered us
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:13:21PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > So, I assume that you don't want to merge my "SCM layer" (which is
> > perfectly fine by me). However, I also apply p
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:58:10PM CEST, I got a letter
where "C. Scott Ananian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> >to yours is no problem for me. Currently I see your HEAD is at
> >461aef08823a18a6c69d472499ef5257f8c7f6c8, so I will
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
to yours is no problem for me. Currently I see your HEAD is at
461aef08823a18a6c69d472499ef5257f8c7f6c8, so I will generate a
set of patches against it.
Have you considered using an s/key-like system to make these hashes more
human-readable? Using the S
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> So, I assume that you don't want to merge my "SCM layer" (which is
> perfectly fine by me). However, I also apply plenty of patches
> concerning the "core git" - be it portability, leak fixes, argument
> parsing fixes and so on.
I'm actually perfectly
> "LT" == Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LT> Hey, all the code I write is always perfect, of course ;)
And you are always right ;-) Liked that blast-from-the-past?
LT> That said, I'm having some trouble merging with your perfect code,
LT> especially since I decided that Russell'
Dear diary, on Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:44:02PM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> And I merged your "Add -z option to show-files", but you had based your
> other patches on Petr's tree which due to my other changes is not going to
> merge totally clean
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Linus, sorry for bothering you with a false alarm. The problem
> turns out to be introduced in pasky-0.4 and does not exist in
> your HEAD.
Hey, all the code I write is always perfect, of course ;)
That said, I'm having some trouble merging with
16 matches
Mail list logo
