Re: [PATCH 0/2] Respecting core.autocrlf when showing objects
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 12, 2008, 20:27 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m3mylqqu05.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080612195553.GK13626@fieldses.org>
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:
> (Is there any advantage, then, to the :n:filename syntax to a user? > Is it useful in any cases when they couldn't use HEAD or MERGE_HEAD > instead? If not I might be tempted to cut this bit entirely (or > postpone it till later.)
I'm not sure, but I think that while HEAD and MERGE_HEAD vs :n: differ in the tree represented (in the index trivial / tree conflicts are resolved) they have the same file contents for conflicting files.
I think that :n: syntax is just shorter, especially for the ancestor (c.f. $(git merge-base HEAD MERGE_HEAD)).
And of course there is octopus merge to be considered...
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git