From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master f9fabb2 2/2: Merge branch 'master' of git.sv.gnu.org:/srv/git/emacs Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 20:02:02 +0300 Message-ID: <83siagws8l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20150527165006.32357.80915@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87egm13yrm.fsf@gmx.de> <838uc8yd3c.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1432832563 28180 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2015 17:02:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:02:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: michael.albinus@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu May 28 19:02:32 2015 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 1Yy1CR-00080c-CO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 19:02:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60069 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1CQ-0006Zf-U6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:02:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46194) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1CB-0006Xg-3h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:02:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1C6-0005Fm-P0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:02:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:44736) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yy1C6-0005FB-I9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:02:10 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NP200E00KEH2W00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 May 2015 20:02:08 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NP200EZDKNJ2Z00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 28 May 2015 20:02:08 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 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:186926 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:24:30 +0100 > From: Artur Malabarba > Cc: Michael Albinus , emacs-devel > Yes, that was the point. If I wrote a commit to fix something that's already > fixed, that commit is now useless, so I discard it. This is a singular situation that happens very rarely, so it's really more of exception than the rule. Learning to deal with merge conflicts, OTOH, will teach the user to cope with a much broader class of problems. > 1. Reverting a commit only affects code I've just written, so it takes very > little mental energy. I know what I'm changing with 100% certainty. > 2. Resolving a merge conflict involves both mine and someone else's code, so > I'll need to invest some energy to read and interpret that code (might be a > little or a lot, depending on the code). If you got a conflict, it means you've modified the same areas as that someone, so presumably you know enough about that code to deal with the conflict. > 3. Even after I've read and interpreted the new remote code, there's always a > small chance I miss some tiny detail inside a large diff when resolving the > conflict. (I've introduced bugs this way a couple of times, whereas I've never > introduced a bug while reverting). Talking with the persons involved is allowed. Git doesn't make us speechless. > 4. Even when the conflict is simple and I know I can solve it without risk, > doing the merge will still keep redundant commits in the history. It's not a > huge deal, but there's no reason to have two commits doing the exact same > thing. Yes, there is a reason: use a routine procedure as frequently as it fits the bill, and you will become fluent with it and stop being scared.