From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:22:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Challenges for an octopus merge
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.