| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Tobias Klausmann wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> However, one aspect of how ebuilds are written these days will |
| 5 |
>> cause a non-trivial amount of merge commits that are not actually |
| 6 |
>> useful in that sense. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Git can do merge conflict markers just like cvs. Also, in practice I |
| 10 |
don't tend to run into merge conflicts with cvs - I always do a |
| 11 |
directory update before making changes. With git I'd probably not do |
| 12 |
a pull if I were working on an obscure pacakge, but if I were doing a |
| 13 |
security keywording I'd certainly do a pull before touching anything |
| 14 |
since the likelihood of a conflict is much higher. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Git even allows the use of tools like meld to resolve conflicts, |
| 17 |
besides the usual fill-the-file-with-diffs-to-cleanup approach. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If this should really turn out to be a problem, then we could also: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> 4) Replace git's default merge driver by our own one that is better |
| 23 |
> suited for ebuilds. This can be done per repository via .git/config |
| 24 |
> and .gitattributes. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Certainly that would be even more helpful! |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives