From: Antoine Pelisse Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:36:21 GMT Subject: Re: Premerging topics Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vsj2hjme3.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Antoine Pelisse 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 pair as a note, and to associate >> a "merge" to that (solving the semantic conflict). > > OK, and as the datastore for 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.