Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:54:44 +0200: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Paul Burba wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:05:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > >> So while I think your fixes should be backported to 1.7.1 ASAP, > > >> I don't think the status quo is acceptable. How do we want to move > > >> forward? > > >> > > >> For reference, here's the error message I'm getting: > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > Yes, the error message is rather long. But as I've already said, this > > reintegrate merge is a complete and total abuse of the reintegrate > > feature. I'm not sure we can save every user from themselves if they > > insist on doing strange things....but I've already made that point, > > and it appears I'm in the minority, so I wont belabor it any further > > :-) > > I don't agree with this. I wouldn't call it "abuse" of this feature. > > The user is clearly intending to reintegrate the branch. But one of the > preconditions for reintegration isn't met. Much like trying to merge into > a mixed-revision working copy, or a working copy with local modifications. > Would you also call that "abuse"? I doubt that :) >
The user simply recalled that 'merge --reintegrate' was the invocation for folding feature branches back into their parent. (And when I say "recalled", I mean "read it off a Subversion Cheatsheet taped to his monitor".) > The user error is definitely not on purpose, and I don't see a point > in punishing users for this error by stealing 3 or more minutes of > their time gathering information of little value to them. > Note that the user performing the reintegrate merge is not necessarily > the same person who performed the cherry-picking merge which makes > --reintegrate impossible. They might simply be unaware of what happened.
