From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:52:51 GMT
Subject: Re: git pull --rebase and losing commits
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0911031047510.4985@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0911030757400.15633@ds9.cixit.se>

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Peter Krefting wrote:

> Thomas Rast:
> 
> > Not very surprising if you use the 'ours' strategy, which doesn't merge at
> > all but instead takes the 'ours' side (IIRC that's the upstream for a
> > rebase, but I always have these mixed up).
> 
> Sounds like it should be called "theirs", then.

Why should it be called "theirs" when it takes "ours"?

Note: the thing I think Thomas wanted to clarify is that this strategy 
does not _resolve conflicts_ to "our" version, but it just outright 
ignores "theirs".  IOW, after a merge with the "ours" strategy, 
"HEAD^{tree}" and "HEAD^^{tree}" will point to _exactly the same object_.

If you want to use any merge strategy, you must understand what it does 
first.  There is no way around that.  No change in UI, or in the core code 
of Git, can relieve you of this obligation.

Ciao,
Dscho