> On 22 Dec 2017, at 10:00, Jonathan Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Git seems to regularly get confused when similar code changes occur in > parallel in different branches. In this case, I had the original version of > ingress mode while the public tree had the reconstructed version - almost > identical, but still constituting a merge conflict. I really don't know why > the 'pad' thing wasn't similarly flagged. > > If there's an easy way to simply accept the remote version of the file as > correct and not bother generating a merge commit, I couldn't find it.
I’ve been unable to discern what distribution/branch/merge strategy is being aimed for here so can’t offer constructive advice. Git has always done what it’s supposed to for me, that may have been not quite what I expected but it’s always been logical. > > In any case I need to thoroughly review all this code before I can sign off > on it. That'll also give me an opportunity to sort out the stats somehow. > > - Jonathan Morton Cheers, Kevin D-B 012C ACB2 28C6 C53E 9775 9123 B3A2 389B 9DE2 334A
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Cake mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cake
