Re: git pull on ia64 linux tree

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Apr 28, 2005, 01:24 UTC
Message-ID: <20050428012434.GC3422@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504271805550.18901@ppc970.osdl.org>

Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:08:29AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> told me that...

Show 16 quoted lines

> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > > (Which is not really nice, because it means that some files get updated 
> > > and others don't, depending on how they were merged, but whatever..)
> > 
> > We always do checkout-cache -f -a after we do merge-cache, so it should
> > end up in a consistent state.
> 
> I agree that for the common case it doesn't really matter, since we'll 
> always update the working directory regardless.
> 
> It was more of a conceptual complaint. We do everything else purely in the
> index, so it's a bit confusing that in that intermediate stage _some_
> files end up being up-to-date, and others end up not.

This actually came all the way from git-merge-one-file-script.

I don't think the intermediate stage matters at all, actually; from the user's point of view it is nearly instantenous, and the tree keeps changing during the merge anyway, when you are trying to resolve non-exact merges by the merge utility. From the user's point of view, the act of merging is atomic and you always end up with something consistent, unless cg-merge is killed. But in that case it's all messed up anyway and you'll better just cg-cancel and try again.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor