Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jul 28, 2008, 19:09 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0807282008470.8986@racer>
In-Reply-To: <20080728185604.GA26322@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Jeff King wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> 
> > Thus resulting in a 'wrong way around' merge as part of master? It
> > would say "Merge branch 'master' into otherbranch", while what
> > happened was "Merge branch 'otherbranch' into master".
> > 
> > So, in short: what does the list think about adding
> > "git-merge-theirs", that does (although possibly less 'hackish'):
> > 
> > cat > git-merge-theirs << EOF
> > #!/bin/sh
> > eval git read-tree --reset -u \\\$\$#
> > EOF
> 
> I ran into this exact situation while showing somebody how awesome git
> was, and it was a little embarrasing to say "oops, now we have to do
> this backwards."

Well, I have to say that the workflow is a bit backwards if the person who _publishes_ the thing is the one saying "Ooops, my version no goodie, other version please, but so that pull still works".

I would have expected the one who has the good version to make the choice.

Ciao, Dscho