From: Petr Baudis Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:24:34 GMT Subject: Re: git pull on ia64 linux tree Message-ID: <20050428012434.GC3422@pasky.ji.cz> In-Reply-To: Dear diary, on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 03:08:29AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds told me that... > > > 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