Re: More merge questions

From: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date: Nov 30, 2005, 18:37 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511301325580.25300@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051130131045.28149.qmail@science.horizon.com>

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, linux@horizon.com wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Given that it all matches up so nicely, I'd like to honestly ask if
> case 3 of the conditions is correct.  I'd think that if I deleted
> a file form te index, and the file wasn't changed on the head I'm
> tracking, the right resolution is to keep it deleted.  Why override
> my deletion?

You're allowed to do the two-way merge with your index empty, and this means that you just hadn't read the ancestor, not that you want to remove everything. I'm not sure what this is useful for.

You're definitely allowed to do a three-way merge with your index empty, meaning that you don't have any local changes at all, which lets you do a merge in a temporary index that didn't exist before. (The two-way case is less interesting, because it's the same as just reading the new tree.)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*