From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:25:38 -0800 Message-ID: <7vhcveo8yl.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <7vtzzfp86x.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 29 19:25:54 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H0MQS-0007oF-2J for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:25:52 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965086AbWL2SZl (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:25:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965089AbWL2SZl (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:25:41 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36]:52682 "EHLO fed1rmmtao03.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965086AbWL2SZk (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:25:40 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061229182539.RFXH29122.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:25:39 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 4iQt1W00a1kojtg0000000; Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:24:54 -0500 To: Johannes Schindelin In-Reply-To: (Johannes Schindelin's message of "Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:55:56 +0100 (CET)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin writes: > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> * jc/3way (Wed Nov 29 18:53:13 2006 -0800) 1 commit >> + git-merge: preserve and merge local changes when doing fast >> forward > > I'd like this, but behind a command line switch. And in addition to saying > "cannot merge, blabla needs update", git could spit out "if you want to > risk a 3way merge, go ahead and add the --preserve-local flag to > git-merge". > > Comments? I think what you propose is in line is what I originally wanted to do, but I backburnered it exactly because I did not like the "if you want to risk a 3-way" phrase. It's not the wording, but the fact that I have to say "risk" bothers me. No matter how you cut it, it _is_ risky, and indicates to me that we are somehow doing this in a wrong way. I have a nagging suspicion that there may be a better approach, but I haven't found one. But you are welcome to take a crack at it.