From: Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:50:34 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Respecting core.autocrlf when showing objects
Message-ID: <1213303835.5327.24.camel@ld0161-tx32>
In-Reply-To: <7vprqmz8kj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:45 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> 
> > (Is there any advantage, then, to the :n:filename syntax to a user?
> > Is it useful in any cases when they couldn't use HEAD or MERGE_HEAD
> > instead?  If not I might be tempted to cut this bit entirely (or
> > postpone it till later.)
> 
> I am somewhat torn between the two.
> 
> This section is only about merge conflicts, so using "checkout HEAD path"
> would be a good substitute.  The text flows better that way, because the
> previous paragraph talks about HEAD and MERGE_HEAD.
> 
> When people run "am -3", however, they may wish that they learned how the
> notation to name blob objects in the index (e.g. :2:path) can be used to
> examine and resolve the conflict, as there is no HEAD/MERGE_HEAD in that
> usage context.


Hi Junio,

I was planning on specifically pointing out the :n: forms as well.
So I'm watching this one a bit carefully and would appreciate a
bit of long-term guidance on the issue here.

Thanks,
jdl