Michael J Gruber [off-list ref] writes:
If you're curious, I kept rebasing Thomas' remerge-diff (on top of our
next) so far. You can find it at
https://github.com/mjg/git/tree/remerge-diff
;-).
Yes, this was a good one.
if you're interested. I don't know what problems were found back then,
or what it would take to get this in-tree now.
If I recall correctly, everybody was in favor of what it does (or at
least attempted to do), but was leaky and not ready for "log -p" to
be used on a long stretch of history or something?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:45:31AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael J Gruber [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
If you're curious, I kept rebasing Thomas' remerge-diff (on top of our
next) so far. You can find it at
https://github.com/mjg/git/tree/remerge-diff
;-).
Yes, this was a good one.
FWIW, I have also been carrying it forward. It's not a tool I reach for
often, but a couple of times it has come in very handy (mostly helping
somebody to track down a mistake that somebody made in a merge, like
accidentally using "checkout --ours" on top of a conflict).
quoted
if you're interested. I don't know what problems were found back then,
or what it would take to get this in-tree now.
If I recall correctly, everybody was in favor of what it does (or at
least attempted to do), but was leaky and not ready for "log -p" to
be used on a long stretch of history or something?
The last round was at:
http://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1409860234.git.tr@thomasrast.ch/
I think. I think the leakiness was dealt with by rebasing onto the
name_hash refactoring. But it looks like there are a lot of little
issues, and maybe one bigger one: it turns "log" from a read-only
operation into that writes into the object database.
-Peff