From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:35:30 GMT
Subject: Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy
Message-ID: <7viqupkxjh.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080729050845.GE26997@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> 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".