git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Poor status output during conflicted merge

From
EREric Raible <raible@nextest.com>
Date
Jul 2, 2010, 01:51 UTC
Message-ID
<4C2D4629.1090600@nextest.com>
In-Reply-To
<7v1vbm3g8j.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> It might be just a simple matter of ...
> 
I don't think it's that simple.  Consider the case of an integrator who
initially picks the wrong branch.  Wouldn't it seem that:
	git checkout --ours file
	git add file
	git status
should result in the same output as:
	git checkout --theirs file
	git add file
	git status
	# oops
	git checkout --ours file
	git add file
	git status

I can accept an answer is "no". After all, 'git add' says that you are happy. But it makes me wonder whether the empty "if (s->in_merge)" clause in wt_status_print_cached_header() wouldn't be the right place to handle this case.

Aside from that, wouldn't the message "merge result will be the same as HEAD commit" be incorrect if that there are other files which were already merged successfully?

Previous: Junio C HamanoNext: Eric Raible
Message 3 of 6 in “Poor status output during conflicted merge”
  1. Eric RaibleJul 1, 2010
  2. Junio C HamanoJul 2, 2010
  3. Eric RaibleJul 2, 2010
  4. Eric RaibleJul 7, 2010
  5. Elijah NewrenJul 7, 2010
  6. demerphqJul 7, 2010

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.