Re: Premerging topics
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Apr 23, 2013, 15:29 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vsj2hjme3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CALWbr2xAxkNMedbuS-+pPy+Zc5MEhoCWk3oW8BXS9db63DoGAg@mail.gmail.com>
Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> writes:
> And I > have the feeling that "merge-fix/B" or "merge-fix/A" doesn't hold > enough information to do that accurately.
Oh, you do not have to resort to feeling; these names do _not_ hold enough information, period. We already know that, that was why I was unhappy, and that was why I sent the "annotating a pair of commit objects" RFD in the first place ;-).
> The idea is then to store the <A, B> pair as a note, and to associate > a "merge" to that (solving the semantic conflict).
OK, and as the datastore for <A, B> pair you were thinking about using a specially-formatted blob and Johan suggested to use a regular tree object?