Re: Why git-merge-resolve in git-am?

From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Date: Dec 28, 2006, 02:20 UTC
Message-ID: <20061228022038.GE16612@spearce.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vr6uk3h2p.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > Why does git-am use git-merge-resolve while git-rebase -m uses
> > git-merge-recursive?
> 
> The use of merge-resolve by am predates merge-resolve became
> usable by at least six weeks, and longer before merge-resolve
> became really stable for about an extra month after.
> 
> Even after it stabilized merge-recursive was way slower than
> merge-resove until it was rewritten in C for another nine
> months.

Good reasons, but all are strictly historical. So there's actually no technical reason we can't use merge-recursive here in git-am.

Basically I'm trying to improve the merge conflict hunks in `git-am -3`. merge-recursive now recognizes GITHEAD_* but merge-one-file doesn't (and can't). Switching to merge-recursive and setting GITHEAD_* would get that case fixed in git-rebase without -m.

-- 
Shawn.