Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-24 Thread Elijah Newren
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:52 AM, Edward Thomson wrote: > Indeed, when I added merge to libgit2, we put the higher-level conflict > analysis into application code because there was not much interest in it > at the time. I've been meaning to add this to `git_status` in libgit2, > but it's not been

Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-24 Thread Josh Bleecher Snyder
Thanks, Ed. I think I'll pursue the libgit2 route; sounds promising. >> But the alternative appears to be punting entirely, as libgit2 does, >> and merely providing something akin to three index entries. > > Indeed, when I added merge to libgit2, we put the higher-level conflict > analysis into a

Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-23 Thread Edward Thomson
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Josh Bleecher Snyder wrote: > Looking over your list above, at a minimum, libgit2 might not have a > particularly good way to represent submodule/file or > submodule/directory conflicts, because is-a-submodule is defined > external to a git_index_entry. libgit2 sh

Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-22 Thread Josh Bleecher Snyder
>> I'm experimenting with some new porcelain for interactive rebase. One >> goal is to leave the work tree untouched for most operations. It looks >> to me like 'git merge-tree' may be the right plumbing command for >> doing the merge part of the pick work of the todo list, one commit at >> a time.

Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-22 Thread Elijah Newren
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:00 PM, Josh Bleecher Snyder wrote: > Hi, all. > > I'm experimenting with some new porcelain for interactive rebase. One > goal is to leave the work tree untouched for most operations. It looks > to me like 'git merge-tree' may be the right plumbing command for > doing the

Re: git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-21 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Sun, Jan 21 2018, Josh Bleecher Snyder jotted: > 3. Feature suggestion > > There's no direct indication of whether any given file's merge > succeeded. Currently I sniff for merge conflicts by looking for > "+<<< .our", which feels like an ugly kludge. Could we provide an > explicit indicat

git merge-tree: bug report and some feature requests

2018-01-20 Thread Josh Bleecher Snyder
Hi, all. I'm experimenting with some new porcelain for interactive rebase. One goal is to leave the work tree untouched for most operations. It looks to me like 'git merge-tree' may be the right plumbing command for doing the merge part of the pick work of the todo list, one commit at a time. If I