Re: baffled again
- From
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
- Date
- Aug 25, 2005, 03:26 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vzmr63deq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508241152240.3317@g5.osdl.org>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> In fact, the case that git selected ("patch applied"), is not only the one
> that is very fundamentally the one git will always select in this kind of
> situation - in some respects is actually the nicer choice of the two.While I appreciate the excuse for not taking immediate and hasty action, I have two problems with your analysis.
* I am not yet convinced that it is _not_ by accident that git ended up choosing the nicer choice of the two.
* Even if it does always choose the nicer choice of the two, Tony was lucky (no pun intended). Rather, we were lucky that Tony was observant. A careless merger may well have easily missed this mismerge (from the human point of view).