Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jul 29, 2008, 06:35 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7viqupkxjh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080729050845.GE26997@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Your reason was "it keeps your crap in the history". And while I > generally am in favor of getting rid of crap and keeping a clean > history, I think it is very much dependent on the individual project's > preferences. IOW, that history might not contain "crap" but rather > now-obsolete changes that are of historical interest. > > But I do agree that -Xtheirs is crap. ;)
Yes, that is why I did not merge 'master' with "theirs" merge into it to subsume it. I reverted -Xtheirs from 'next' (due to "never-rewind during the cycle" rule) and intend to rebuild 'next' without it when 1.6.0 ships.
However, that does not keep me from holding onto its tip privately (and I do, as the machinery to pass -Xoption through git-merge to backends would be useful later).
IOW, "now-obsolete changes that are of historical interest" does not necessarily justify a "subsuming" merge using "-s ours" or "-s theirs".