From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:54:19 GMT Subject: Re: Sharing a massive distributed merge Message-ID: <7vd3lp31tw.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110317191517.GC20508@sigill.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > It would be neat if the tree could somehow mark a bit for "this is > unresolved". I guess we could shove it into a mode bit. But that seems > like a waste of a mode bit for this one use case that doesn't come up > all that often, and which doesn't _need_ to represent that information > in-tree. The commit-message solution would work perfectly fine. Just adding the blob with the whole glory of <<>> markers would be better than recording --ours or --theirs. Deleting might be a workaround that would work better in practice as somebody already mentioned, though. I agree that message is an essential part of the communication medium to coordinate this kind of workflow. It is not like the downstream is a dumb machinery that blindly grab and overlay the partial merge results that can only read from tree objects and not commit messages.