Subject: Re: more merge strategies : feature request

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:15:06 -0800

Nanako Shiraishi <[email-masked]> writes:

> Isn't what Caleb wants "-X ours/theirs" per-hunk option for merge strategy backends?
>
> It was discussed several months ago on the list and was rejected.  For details you can start here:
>
>     http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89010/focus=89021
>
> I still think the patch in the above link was reasonable, but the thread
> was distracted into discussing minor syntactical details of how the
> option gets passed to the backend, and the rest of the discussion to
> decide if it makes sense to add such a feature was unfortunately lost in
> the noise and never concluded.

I thought http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89033 in
the thread (and your response to it which is 89175) pretty much concluded
the discussion.  Is Caleb adding anything new to the discussion (iow, is
there a convincing new argument why having such a merge is a good idea and
what the workflow looks like that benefits from it)?