Re: Premerging topics

From: Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 23, 2013, 15:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CALWbr2xosv9pM3yTRvZAhAoR_1DS6fS0jX2ud4=1VeJPSn+5iA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vsj2hjme3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 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 ;-).

:)

Show 6 quoted lines

>> 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?

Exactly. But as I said, it should associate the pair to a merge. And trees contain other trees or blobs, not commits. I'm wondering if this is a problem.