On 07/03/2013 04:23, David Aguilar wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Bracey wrote:
+make_virtual_base() {
+ # Copied from git-merge-one-file.sh.
I think the reasoning behind these patches is good.
How do we feel about this duplication?
Bad.
Should we make a common
David Aguilar writes:
> How do we feel about this duplication?
> Should we make a common function in the git-sh-setup.sh,
> or is it okay to have a slightly modified version of this
> function in two places?
It probably is a good idea to have it in one place. That would also
solve the @@DIFF@@
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Bracey wrote:
> +make_virtual_base() {
> + # Copied from git-merge-one-file.sh.
> + # This starts with $LOCAL, and uses git apply to
> + # remove lines that are not in $REMOTE.
> + cp -- "$LOCAL" "$BASE"
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Kevin Bracey wrote:
> Originally, with no base, Git gave P4Merge $LOCAL as a dummy base:
>
>p4merge "$LOCAL" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
>
> Commit 0a0ec7bd changed this to:
>
>p4merge "empty file" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
>
> to avoid the problem of b
Originally, with no base, Git gave P4Merge $LOCAL as a dummy base:
p4merge "$LOCAL" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
Commit 0a0ec7bd changed this to:
p4merge "empty file" "$LOCAL" "$REMOTE" "$MERGED"
to avoid the problem of being unable to save in some circumstances.
Unfortunately this appro
5 matches
Mail list logo