On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 02:33:09PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Oh, I agree it's insane to try to carry through unmerged entries. I'm
> > just concerned that not all code paths are careful enough to check.
>
> I would actually be surprised if some code path do assume s
Jeff King writes:
> Oh, I agree it's insane to try to carry through unmerged entries. I'm
> just concerned that not all code paths are careful enough to check.
I would actually be surprised if some code path do assume somebody
might give them an index with conflicting entries in it and guard
aga
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:34:27PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > Or are you suggesting that the three-way case should always be protected
> > by checking that there are no unmerged entries before we start it? That
> > seems sane to me, but I haven't confirmed that that i
Jeff King writes:
> Or are you suggesting that the three-way case should always be protected
> by checking that there are no unmerged entries before we start it? That
> seems sane to me, but I haven't confirmed that that is the case.
I think the normal (and hopefully only) "-m -u O A B" use case
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 07:34:53AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Good point; I was just thinking about the --reset case.
> >
> > With "-m", though, we could in theory carry over the unmerged entries
> > (again, assuming that "old" and "new" are the same; otherwise it is an
> > obvious reject).
Jeff King writes:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:24:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>> > So I think we need to update twoway_merge to recognize unmerged entries,
>> > which gives us two options:
>> >
>> > 1. Reject the merge.
>> >
>> > 2. Throw away the current unm
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:24:46PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > So I think we need to update twoway_merge to recognize unmerged entries,
> > which gives us two options:
> >
> > 1. Reject the merge.
> >
> > 2. Throw away the current unmerged entry in favor of the "ne
Jeff King writes:
> So I think we need to update twoway_merge to recognize unmerged entries,
> which gives us two options:
>
> 1. Reject the merge.
>
> 2. Throw away the current unmerged entry in favor of the "new" entry
> (when old and new are the same, of course; otherwise we would
>
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 06:05:41AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> [clear state from last run]
> $ rm -rf .git/rebase-apply
> $ git reset --hard
>
> [apply the patch; we get a conflict]
> $ git am -3sc
> queue-3.2/alsa-usb-audio-fix-missing-autopm-for-midi-input.patch
>
> [now run just th
9 matches
Mail list logo
