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: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:19:09 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87zjbsn236.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416050389 12170 80.91.229.3 (15 Nov 2014 11:19:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 11:19:49 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 15 12:19:42 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 1XpbOI-0004I0-8r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:19:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39857 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpbOH-0000dP-QH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:19:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41195) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpbO8-0000dI-Mg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:19:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpbO2-0005dC-CI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:19:32 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:39289) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XpbO2-0005d2-77 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 06:19:26 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XpbNw-00046r-TG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:19:20 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f520ac.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.245.32.172]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:19:20 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f520ac.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2014 12:19:20 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 44 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f520ac.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:XNEsORCl2u9Eswli6w7HuawPlFU= 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:177165 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > . "git checkout" is not what a "checkout" means or does in any other > VCS I know of. Moreover, it has several different meanings and > effects, one of them being "revert to the last version", for > example. > > . "bzr pull" doesn't commit; "git pull" does. Likewise for "merge". > (AFAIK, svn and hg both behave like bzr.) One effect of that is > that you need to remember to use -e if you want to add something > to the commit log message when you merge or cherry-pick. I think -e is the default for merging these days. At any rate, you can fix up the message with git commit --amend afterwards. > . the inhumanely complex way of specifying past commits. I miss the > simplicity of -n..-m; the replacement @~n..@~m is more to type and > remember; the similar @{n}..@{m} has a subtly different meaning. Not subtle at all, actually. @{n}..@{m} seems basically useless. It may work as an argument to git-reflog but I am not sure about that. Basically, you'd only use @{n} for single commits. > What's more, the documentation doesn't help by giving you examples > of specs you'd frequently use, but instead insists on formally > describing the syntax, leaving the rest to you to figure out. The > result is that I'm not even sure I figured out the "@~n..@~m" spec > correctly (did I?). I never heard or read of it. I rather use HEAD~n or HEAD~m when referring to the current head but indeed, @ is documented as a shortcut for HEAD on its own. Which seems like a really stupid idea since it means that HEAD@{1} is different from @{1} but is the same as @@{1}. That is an overload of meaning that one could have well done without... I'd recommend that you keep away from @~n if you don't want to confuse other Emacs users. HEAD~n will be more meaningful to people. -- David Kastrup