Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-27 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > And at that point, use of "-s ours" is no longer a workaround for > > lack of "-s theirs". It is a proper part of the desired semantics, > > i.e. from the point of view of the surviving canonical history line, > > you want to preserve what it

Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-26 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Wed, 27 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > and that is where the gotcha comes -- what if "my" changes were already > > published? then I would like to avoid the rebase, and would -s theirs > > to choose "their" solution in favor of mine and be able to push so > > others could still

Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-26 Thread Junio C Hamano
Yaroslav Halchenko writes: > and that is where the gotcha comes -- what if "my" changes were already > published? then I would like to avoid the rebase, and would -s theirs > to choose "their" solution in favor of mine and be able to push so > others could still

Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-26 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Yaroslav Halchenko writes: > > 1. As a workaround for absence of -m theirs I using mtheirs git alias: > > (I believe provided to me awhile back here on the list): > > mtheirs = !sh -c 'git merge -s ours --no-commit $1 &&

Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-25 Thread Junio C Hamano
Yaroslav Halchenko writes: > 1. As a workaround for absence of -m theirs I using mtheirs git alias: > (I believe provided to me awhile back here on the list): > > mtheirs = !sh -c 'git merge -s ours --no-commit $1 && git read-tree -m -u > $1' - > > and it worked fine

-s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect

2017-09-25 Thread Yaroslav Halchenko
On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote: >It is a different matter to resurrect the age old discussion that >happend in the summer of 2008 if '-s theirs' should or should not >exist. In short, the previous discussion can be summarised to >"we don't want '-s theirs' as it