From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:15:06 GMT
Subject: Re: more merge strategies : feature request
Message-ID: <7vabbc7kk5.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081204062717.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com>

Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:

> Isn't what Caleb wants "-X ours/theirs" per-hunk option for merge strategy backends?
>
> It was discussed several months ago on the list and was rejected.  For details you can start here:
>
>     http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89010/focus=89021
>
> I still think the patch in the above link was reasonable, but the thread
> was distracted into discussing minor syntactical details of how the
> option gets passed to the backend, and the rest of the discussion to
> decide if it makes sense to add such a feature was unfortunately lost in
> the noise and never concluded.

I thought http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89033 in
the thread (and your response to it which is 89175) pretty much concluded
the discussion.  Is Caleb adding anything new to the discussion (iow, is
there a convincing new argument why having such a merge is a good idea and
what the workflow looks like that benefits from it)?