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

From: Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 28, 2008, 19:48 UTC
Message-ID: <bd6139dc0807281248m51997c58q5a7aaf3ac51ee7a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080728181424.GM32057@genesis.frugalware.org>

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 20:14, Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 04:54:17PM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
> Isn't this the stupid one?

No, the stupid one did "take all non-conflicting hunks from our side, and any for conflicting hunks, take theirs", which was rather silly I must say, although I have heard one use-cases where it makes sense (no I don't think we should have a git-merge-theirs-on-conflict).

> It's perfect for my testing needs, but this is not something that people
> should ever use on a real repo.

What about the use-case I described in my first mail?

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier