Elijah Newren writes:
> What depends on stage#2 coming from the commit that will become the
> first parent?
How about "git diff --cc" for a starter? What came from HEAD's
ancestry should appear first and then what came from the side branch
that is merged into.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:43 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> >> > > > +--ours::
> >> > > > +--theirs::
> >> ...
> >> go away. Maybe it can still be fixed (I haven't dug too deeply into
> >> it), but if so, the only fix
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:14 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
> >> My single biggest worry about this whole series is that I'm worried
> >> you're perpetuating and even further ingraining one of the biggest
> >> usability problems with checkout: people suggest and use it for
> >>
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:43 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
>> > > > +--ours::
>> > > > +--theirs::
>> ...
>> go away. Maybe it can still be fixed (I haven't dug too deeply into
>> it), but if so, the only fix needed here would be to remove this long
>> explanation about why the
Duy Nguyen writes:
>> My single biggest worry about this whole series is that I'm worried
>> you're perpetuating and even further ingraining one of the biggest
>> usability problems with checkout: people suggest and use it for
>> reverting/restoring paths to a previous version, but it doesn't do
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 6:43 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > > +--ours::
> > > > +--theirs::
> > > > + Check out stage #2 ('ours') or #3 ('theirs') for unmerged
> > > > + paths.
> > > > ++
> > > > +Note that during `git rebase` and `git pull --rebase`, 'ours' and
> > > > +'theirs' may
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 8:22 AM Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the comments! There are still some I haven't replied
> (either I'll agree and do it anyway, or I'll need some more time to
> digest)
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:45 AM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > +'git restore-files' [--from=]
Thanks for all the comments! There are still some I haven't replied
(either I'll agree and do it anyway, or I'll need some more time to
digest)
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:45 AM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > +'git restore-files' [--from=] ...
>
> Isn't this already inferred by the previous line? Or was
Elijah Newren writes:
>> +Updates files in the working tree to match the version in the index
>> +or the specified tree.
>> +
>> +'git restore-files' [--from=] ...::
>
> and ? I understand and ,
> or but have no clue why it'd be okay to specify
> and together. What does that even mean?
I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:03 PM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
> "git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many
> users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To rememdy that, the
> command is now split in two: switch-branch and checkout-files. The
"checkout-files"
"git checkout" doing too many things is a source of confusion for many
users (and it even bites old timers sometimes). To rememdy that, the
command is now split in two: switch-branch and checkout-files. The
good old "git checkout" command is still here and will be until all
(or most of users) are
11 matches
Mail list logo
