Re: merge strategy request

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 26, 2007, 00:11 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90703251711x6ecfa3e2k19b7d36717fad44e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vejnc28i3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 3/26/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

> But a more interesting point is "under what condition".  If the
> condition is "when GIT_MERGE environment is defined", it is not
> much better than what Dscho suggested, as the external merger
> would be called for all paths.

Well well... no. Unless you mean all paths that need diff3 merging (that is, all paths that changed on both sides). And in that case, the script itself can have the "change policy depending on file extension or phase of the moon" machinery. I think it makes it more powerful because it can have specialised logic for this -- where the git machinery is going to be limited to simpler rules (like file extension).

In any case, it is a _different_ mechanism to saying "all changed paths on either side". I don't know if there is even an interesting case for that.

> it is rather an unfortunate norm.  I am not opposed to give
> git-merge-recursive a command line option to tell it to merge
> ignoring the whitespace-only changes, when it does the 3-way
> file-level merge internally.

That'd be great to have. How about both? ;-)

cheers,