Re: [PATCH 04/10] merge-strategies.txt: update wording for the resolve strategy
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-04 00:19:47
"Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:
From: Elijah Newren <redacted> The resolve merge strategy was given prominent positioning in this document, being listed first since it was the default at the time the document was written. It hasn't been the default since before Git v1.0 was released, though. Move it later in the document, near `octopus` and `ours`.
I think it was listed first because it was written first.
Further, the wording for "resolve" claimed that it was "considered generally safe and fast", which implies that the other strategies are not.
I do not think it never implied any such thing; it is good to remove it, or add the same to all strategies, though.
quoted hunk
diff --git a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt b/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt index 5d707e952aa..6b6017e1cc8 100644 --- a/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt +++ b/Documentation/merge-strategies.txt@@ -6,13 +6,6 @@ backend 'merge strategies' to be chosen with `-s` option. Some strategies can also take their own options, which can be passed by giving `-X<option>` arguments to `git merge` and/or `git pull`. -resolve:: - This can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch - and another branch you pulled from) using a 3-way merge - algorithm. It tries to carefully detect criss-cross - merge ambiguities and is considered generally safe and - fast. - recursive:: This can only resolve two heads using a 3-way merge algorithm. When there is more than one common@@ -106,6 +99,13 @@ subtree[=<path>];; is prefixed (or stripped from the beginning) to make the shape of two trees to match. +resolve:: + This can only resolve two heads (i.e. the current branch + and another branch you pulled from) using a 3-way merge + algorithm. It tries to carefully detect criss-cross + merge ambiguities. It cannot handle renames. This was + the default merge algorithm prior to November 2005.
"It does not handle renames"; it wasn't like we wanted to do so and cannot---we didn't want to, didn't think it was worth doing, it was not part of the design objective to do renames, period. I do not think it is even worth mentioning that it was the default in the past. And I do not think it is worth saying what timeframe the recursive was the default, either.
octopus:: This resolves cases with more than two heads, but refuses to do a complex merge that needs manual resolution. It is