Hi Ingo,
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Wondering why Git allowed me to be so stupid with those leftover merge
>> > markers.
>> > Git usually doesn't even allow me to commit them so I have these tuned out
>> > as a
>> > possibility. This was just a regular git rebase -i flow, to back-merge
>> > fixes and
>> > reorder/squash patches - nothing fancy that I remember - only the
>> > occasional
>> > --onto option. I'm using Git 2.7.4.
>>
>> Git complains about the merge conflicts, and refuses to commit the result
>> as long as you haven't resolved them, but it will happily commit everything
>> you add using "git add -u", incl. merge markers.
>
> Hm, it should really force that via 'git add -f' or such. The merge markers
> are
> _very_ infrequent as naturally occuring source code lines even on a per line
> basis
> - and especially the combination of them should be exceedingly unique.
They were very infrequent, until we switched to RST for documentation,
causing false positives when searching for "^[<=>].*" in vim...
> I frequently use:
>
> git add $(git ls-files -m)
That's identical to "git add -u", right?
> ... to stage edits without comitting them, probably that workflow is what
> caused
> this bug.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
