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 using an
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-way
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 is,
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 second merge
4 matches
Mail list logo
