Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

Quoting Junio C Hamano [off-list ref]:

Well, for one thing, I do not believe in their cause.  As I wrote in the
log messages for these commits (actually not these above which is a series
for merge fixup, but the other topic), I do not think it is a sensible
thing to say "let's take as much automerge results as possible to salvage
our changes where they do not overlap with what the upstream did, but I
would give up our changes to places that the upstream also touched,
because I do not understand what they did well enough to be able to
resolve the merge conflicts correctly", and "merge -Xtheirs" is exactly
that.

I do not know if "I do not understand what they did well enough" is the only reason people would want to use that feature. Isn't it better to let people decide that for themselves?

That also was the reason I did not add any documentation to it.  But I do
like the change to the infrastructure to allow passing strategy-specific
options through git-merge and git-pull.  Perhaps I should write something
up, if only to salvage that -X<option> part, even though I am very much
inclined to discard -Xtheirs (and -Xours) part.

I think such a documentation will help people to decide if 'theirs' option makes sense for their workflow.

-- 
Nanako Shiraishi
http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/