From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:29:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Premerging topics
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?