"Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
Am I the only one who messes this up? If not, patch is below.
Maybe. ;-)
I've memorized it long long ago. But my coworkers haven't and always
get it wrong, and look at me funny when I tell them "trust me, your
data is in stage 2 and theirs is in stage 3... because that's the
convention all of the tools you are using follows".
I am not _opposed_ to :ours:$path syntax, but I suspect there is
something else that is wrong if you need to use :$n:$path syntax
that often.
I have never been in a situation I had to say :base:$path,
unless I am debugging the merge driver. So it is between :ours:$path
and :theirs:$path.
But aren't they by definition HEAD:$path and MERGE_HEAD:$path,
which are far more descriptive?
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 11:30:19PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
I am not _opposed_ to :ours:$path syntax, but I suspect there is
something else that is wrong if you need to use :$n:$path syntax
that often.
That's the problem: I don't use it that often, so when I do, the numbers
seem nonsensical.
I have never been in a situation I had to say :base:$path,
unless I am debugging the merge driver. So it is between :ours:$path
and :theirs:$path.
I used to need it to look at the 3-way merge, but git-mergetool now does
a nice job of hiding these details from me.
Thinking about it more, I really _haven't_ used the stages at all since
git-mergetool came around. This thread just reminded me of all the prior
times when I had had trouble with it.
So Junio, please consider my patch retracted. What _would_ be useful is
GITHEAD_* support for git-mergetool, which has been on my 'todo' list
for some time. I'll see if I can work up a patch for that.
-Peff
Junio C Hamano wrote:
"Shawn O. Pearce" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
Am I the only one who messes this up? If not, patch is below.
Maybe. ;-)
I've memorized it long long ago. But my coworkers haven't and always
get it wrong, and look at me funny when I tell them "trust me, your
data is in stage 2 and theirs is in stage 3... because that's the
convention all of the tools you are using follows".
I am not _opposed_ to :ours:$path syntax, but I suspect there is
something else that is wrong if you need to use :$n:$path syntax
that often.
I have never been in a situation I had to say :base:$path,
unless I am debugging the merge driver. So it is between :ours:$path
and :theirs:$path.
But aren't they by definition HEAD:$path and MERGE_HEAD:$path,
which are far more descriptive?
Nice idea, if only this was mentioned in the documentation...
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git