On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > I think what I missed is that the same logic to ignore side branches > whose history gets cauterised with such an "ours" merge may apply to > an "ours" merge that people already make, but the latter may want to > take both histories into account. > > So I guess it is not such a great idea.
The particular proposed implementation? Or the broader idea to save loose commits more permanently? I'm still interested in a solution for the latter. -- Matt McClure http://matthewlmcclure.com http://www.mapmyfitness.com/profile/matthewlmcclure -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
