Miklos Vajna [off-list ref] writes:
Till now 'git merge -s foobar' bailed out with an error message, but
foobar in pull.twohead or pull.octopus was just silently ignored. It's
better to inform the user then just silently doing nothing.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <redacted>
Doesn't this make "git merge -s 'recursive resolve'" to misbehave?
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:01:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Doesn't this make "git merge -s 'recursive resolve'" to misbehave?
Depends on what do we expect it to do. ;-)
My patch unified the handling of pull.twohead / -s option, so it
(actually unintentionally) made -s accepting multiple strategies as a
space separated list. Given that we already accept multiple strategies
as a space separated list in pull.twohead (and we do _not_ use multiple
pull.twohead entries) I think my patch is more logical.
Though, there was already a thread about how should we specify multiple
strategies on the commandline; and you suggested in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89208
to use -s strategy1 -s strategy2.
In that case, I think your patch is better, and once it hits git.git, I
would like to send a patch that changes the config parsing as well, so
that pull.twohead "foo bar" would be invalid, and the user would have to
have two pull.twohead entries: one for foo and one for bar.
Does this sound reasonable?
Thanks.