From: Petr Baudis Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 19:26:38 GMT Subject: Re: "tla missing -s" equivalent with git/cogito Message-ID: <20060118192638.GU28365@pasky.or.cz> In-Reply-To: <46a038f90601181107h57e6fb73peb199689349aec41@mail.gmail.com> Dear diary, on Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:07:27PM CET, I got a letter where Martin Langhoff said that... > On 1/19/06, Petr Baudis wrote: > > Now you want to merge the branch as a whole. Cherrypicking-aware VCS > > would just merge the patch2, but you are taking the whole diff: > ... > > And you get a conflict instead of b\nc. > > While I haven't tested your particular example, it looks to me like > git-cherry would identify it correctly. So far my experience has been > that git-cherry's strategy detects my cherry-picked patches pretty > well. > > Why would it not work in your example? Patch 1 has clearly been > applied in both branches, and git-cherry would normally detect that > alright. It probably would. So? We are talking about git-merge and cg-merge here. Now, it might be interesting to have a cherry-aware merge strategy, but I suspect that the conflicts handling there would be quite non-trivial. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Of the 3 great composers Mozart tells us what it's like to be human, Beethoven tells us what it's like to be Beethoven and Bach tells us what it's like to be the universe. -- Douglas Adams