From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:35:05 GMT
Subject: Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy
Message-ID: <7vr69dpu9i.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vvdyppv4c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> "Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 22:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> "Sverre Rabbelier" <alturin@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Mhhh, but the proposed strategy there was in response to the 'insane'
>>>> git-merge-theirs version, not to the 'exact opposite of
>>>> git-merge-ours' that I refer to now, yes?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> Nanako Shiraishi's patch was not in response to the "git-merge-theirs"
>> thread, or I am missing something here....?
>
> The quoted sentence by me in that message was after I explained why "per
> hunk theirs" aka "-Xtheirs" was not such a great idea I further went on to
> say "by the way, '-s theirs' is even worse and here is why".

Heh, I ended up doing the "digging" myself.   The quote came from this:

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89010/focus=89024

and "tried not to sound too negative" there refers to:

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89010/focus=89021

which _was_ about the "-Xtheirs", not "-s theirs".