Antw: [EXT] Re: Strange "git stash pop" conflict (one chunk out of many)
- From
- Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
- Date
- Dec 19, 2022, 07:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <63A00FDC020000A100050846@gwsmtp.uni-regensburg.de>
- In-Reply-To
- <ced6bacc-3d77-4d24-33f3-a93d2ae7a131@gmail.com>
>>> Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> schrieb am 17.12.2022 um 02:58 in
Nachricht <ced6bacc-3d77-4d24-33f3-a93d2ae7a131@gmail.com>:
Show 21 quoted lines
> On 12/15/22 18:38, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>> Here is how the conflict looks (to me both variants seem identical):
>>
>> # pre-allocate translations and accesskeys
>> <<<<<<< Updated upstream
>> foreach my $attr (LD_SEARCH_ATTR) {
>> $attr{$attr} = [translate_attr($attr), undef];
>> $attr{$attr}->[1] = add_access_key($aks, 0, $attr{$attr}->[0]);
>> }
>> foreach my $attr (LD_SEARCH_ATTR) {
>> =======
>> foreach my $attr (LD_SEARCH_ATTR) {
>> $attr{$attr} = [translate_attr($attr), undef];
>> $attr{$attr}->[1] = add_access_key($aks, 0, $attr{$attr}->[0]);
>> }
>> foreach my $attr (LD_SEARCH_ATTR) {
>>>>>>>>> Stashed changes
>> @n = (P_P_SRCH_ATTR . $attr, @{$attr{$attr}});
>>
>
> Both sides are identical? You can freely choose either side...Yes, but why do I have to handle this obvious non-conflict? Couldn't "stash" handle that, too? In fact that was the only conflict I had.
> > -- > An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara