From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:06:07 GMT
Subject: Re: "tla missing -s" equivalent with git/cogito
Message-ID: <46a038f90601181006u40a1f8e1n47c27651a4cab3d@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vlkxdwhs6.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 1/19/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Arch star-merge is not an octopus.  They have different "merge
> strategy" just like we have more than one.  No, I do not
> remember the details of how they do it.

In Arch, star-merge is roughly equivalent to git-merge. When I was an
Arch user, I could go out and take a walk under the stars while it
tried to work its magic on my 10K file tree -- so the name was quite
fitting ;-)

The main difference with git is that it has explicit rename tracking
and explicit "patches already applied" tracking. We detect those
things at merge time, and in my projects it has so far worked better
than tla's explicit tracking of things -- but only when I merge with
git-merge. One of these days I'll convince Pasky to use git-merge for
cg-merge's internals.

cheers,


martin