Re: Challenges for an octopus merge
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Feb 11, 2011, 18:22 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vd3my1leq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D55627F.30305@web.de>
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> writes:
>> The second-to-last line of the output needs to be rephrased. > > Which wording adjustment have you got in mind?
Something along the two lines below to rephase the second-to-last line of the output I quoted from your original message.
>> Octopus is not for recording conflicting merges and when it punts you >> shouldn't be attempting to resolve and record it as an octopus merge.
> Would it make sense to specify that the merging process may switch to the > strategy "resolve" on demand?
Depends on what you mean by "on demand", but if you mean "git merge A B C" automagically turns into "git merge A; git merge B; git merge C" then I don't think that makes much sense. The user needs to decide what to do next; the user may choose to do "git merge A C ; git merge B" instead, but *after* inspecting the situation.