Re: [PATCH v2] pull: merge into unborn by fast-forwarding from empty tree
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> I think I got us off-track with my expectation of ending the one case
> with a conflicted index. But caring about that is even more unlikely. I
> think Thomas's original patch is probably a happy medium.
OK, so should I consider it Reviewed-by: peff?
> As an orthogonal matter, we probably should reverse the order of
> updating HEAD and the index/working tree, as it does not make much sense
> to me to do the former if the latter is not possible (and that is the
> case even with the current code).
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>