On 08/27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer writes:
>
> > Agreed. I think it may be solvable if we'd actually get the
> > information about what belongs to which side from the merge algorithm
> > directly.
>
> The merge machinery may (eh, rather, "does") know, but we do not
> have a way
Thomas Gummerer writes:
> Fair enough. I thought of the technical documentation as something
> that doesn't promise users anything, but rather describes how the
> internals work right now, which is what this bit of documentation
> attempted to write down.
That's fine. I'd rather keep it but
Thomas Gummerer writes:
> Agreed. I think it may be solvable if we'd actually get the
> information about what belongs to which side from the merge algorithm
> directly.
The merge machinery may (eh, rather, "does") know, but we do not
have a way to express that in the working tree file that
On 08/22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thomas Gummerer writes:
>
> > Hmm, it does describe what happens in the code, which is what this
> > patch implements. Maybe we should rephrase the title here?
> >
> > Or are you suggesting dropping this patch (and the next one)
> > completely, as we don't want
Thomas Gummerer writes:
> Hmm, it does describe what happens in the code, which is what this
> patch implements. Maybe we should rephrase the title here?
>
> Or are you suggesting dropping this patch (and the next one)
> completely, as we don't want to try and handle the case where this
> kind
On 08/22, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
>
> > But why not add this to the git-rerere manpage? These technical docs
> > get way less exposure, and in this case we're not describing some
> > interna implementation detail, which the technical docs are for, but
> >
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:
> But why not add this to the git-rerere manpage? These technical docs
> get way less exposure, and in this case we're not describing some
> interna implementation detail, which the technical docs are for, but
> something that's user-visible, let's put that in
On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 7:23 PM Thomas Gummerer wrote:
Late reply since I just saw this in next.
> Currently rerere can't handle nested conflicts and will error out when
> it encounters such conflicts. Do that by recursively calling the
> 'handle_conflict' function to normalize the conflict.
>
Currently rerere can't handle nested conflicts and will error out when
it encounters such conflicts. Do that by recursively calling the
'handle_conflict' function to normalize the conflict.
Note that a conflict like this would only be produced if a user
commits a file with conflict markers, and
9 matches
Mail list logo
