Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

Your reason was "it keeps your crap in the history". And while I
generally am in favor of getting rid of crap and keeping a clean
history, I think it is very much dependent on the individual project's
preferences. IOW, that history might not contain "crap" but rather
now-obsolete changes that are of historical interest.

But I do agree that -Xtheirs is crap. ;)

Yes, that is why I did not merge 'master' with "theirs" merge into it to
subsume it.  I reverted -Xtheirs from 'next' (due to "never-rewind during
the cycle" rule) and intend to rebuild 'next' without it when 1.6.0 ships.

However, that does not keep me from holding onto its tip privately (and I
do, as the machinery to pass -Xoption through git-merge to backends would
be useful later).

IOW, "now-obsolete changes that are of historical interest" does not
necessarily justify a "subsuming" merge using "-s ours" or "-s theirs".