From: Junio C Hamano Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:10:24 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Clarify documentation on the "ours" merge strategy. Message-ID: <7vk4xsqhkv.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20091114111259.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Nanako Shiraishi writes: > Quoting Peter Krefting > >> The web tree checkout script uses rebase to avoid introducing merge >> commits every time the blog comment is updated, as it in 99 % of cases >> is unrelated to any other changes found in the central repo. >> >> In the few cases where the blog comment update from the web tree >> conflicts with a change in the central repo, I want the "git pull >> --rebase" call to overwrite any changes in the central repo with my >> changes in the web tree (meaning that I would later have to manually >> re-delete the spam comments, but I can live with that). > > That sounds like "-Xours" merge option that was discussed some time > ago. See > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/76650/focus=89021 > > I remember that Junio and Petr were against it because it would > encourage a bad workflow. Dscho was against the syntax used to > pass the options also. Yeah, Björn seems to speculate the same. Even though I still think -Xours/-Xtheirs are nonsense options in the context of source code management, I suspect that they might be exactly what Peter needs in this situation. As long as the changes made on the "web tree" side only consist of user-generated blog contents and never touch framework code that is controlled by his "central repo" side (and that condition should hold true; otherwise Peter's web site is seriously broken from the security point of view and no SCM can fix that), running a merge with the fabled -Xours option in the "web tree" to slurp in the changes made on the "central repo" side does not sound like an unreasonable thing to do.