From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: git pull fails with merge conflicts. How can this possibly happen? Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:54:13 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <877fytkbt6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141114183737.GB3168@acm.acm> <5466517B.50705@porkrind.org> <20141114215404.GD3168@acm.acm> <838ujchods.fsf@gnu.org> <8761egx1k2.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83sihkg2ds.fsf@gnu.org> <83389hdd7u.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416244483 31915 80.91.229.3 (17 Nov 2014 17:14:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:14:43 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 17 18:14:36 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPsp-0007Kv-2h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:14:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49206 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPso-00056W-II for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:14:34 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34029) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPZP-0004P1-SP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:54:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPZJ-0000sN-QK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:54:31 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:43948) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPZJ-0000sG-Kj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:54:25 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqPZI-0003mf-OW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:54:24 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f41f1e.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.31.30]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:54:24 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f41f1e.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 17:54:24 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f41f1e.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:O4xntec1bAyIOg7Y2MrO8b/Hgz8= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177456 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Git, OTOH, could have used the widely adopted terminology and > semantics, but instead deliberately chose not to. Doing things better > doesn't need a drastic change in terminology. Git was created in order to enable workflows as efficient than those developed while using BitKeeper whose license for use by Linux developers had been pulled. To be on the safe legal side, one design metric was to be quite different from BitKeeper. Another design metric was high efficiency. A prototype was running within weeks, basically consisting of several low-level commands. Yet another design metric was to avoid falling into any of the traps of the current centralized version control systems. So the idea was to be really different from Bitkeeper (which was considered a good system but must not be copied) and really different from established centralized VCS systems (which were considered bad systems to the degree that Torvalds said something like the SVN slogan "a better CVS" was sort of an oxymoron since he considered "everything CVS should have been" would be more or less "dead, buried, and forgotten"). In practice, I don't feel that the "really different" angle is all that strong. Still, when trying to search for pillars one can rely on, this may prove irritating. Git was heavily used and developed before anybody could have tried retrofitting an overarching design and philosophy over what happened to work efficiently. Restraining the toolbox the first generation coders would have met disapproval (of the "changing horses in midstream" kind), and it would also likely have been considered hubris. So Git is more or less defined by its mechanisms rather than its concepts. Changing that would likely prove tricky. There are several toolsets, graphical or command line, facilitating/favoring particular workflows. Emacs has its own chance of supporting particular workflows via what it makes available as part of PVCS and/or VC. -- David Kastrup