From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Need review of emacs-25-merge branch Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:34 -0800 Message-ID: References: <83fuyjdi2z.fsf@gnu.org> <83vb7fbuw3.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1451505011 2193 80.91.229.3 (30 Dec 2015 19:50:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:50:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 30 20:50:04 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 1aEMkz-0007XL-Fm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:50:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53560 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEMky-0004dV-Q8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:50:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37155) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEMkh-0004dJ-27 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:49:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEMkg-0002Bt-0v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:49:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pf0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e]:35614) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aEMkc-0002Ar-6k; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:49:38 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 78so145931280pfw.2; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:message-id:references :user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=h1X1jsLPOJ38E6ZzfQxa1v+wZMndtLOLfmlYaNqHBRM=; b=m8PLsmKo4baaz6fze7wGclEukYcN6a6C6Th1pGdjYeEFF+h1czsfVoHjhQANoJVEFa 93YUGsJzDKKEgVo/4JZwi8pn8lYKHGKM8zQBPQGG8wsw9LC9a3QaeG16XiGT431Q1vH8 CMhu4hr4Xb9GSbkn9WEKlBQHhdSNm+sHhWjgv8y/QcdqJgkmz/pM1tYEtFJTto14prHW Fo4SxJFl+wRqUWE3ub+PZNc58dQiVVmYlTzV1PefmLlh1ErCynPKFdH89Ou29vRrcNDM OG8OdDb9oaad9YI9wXvAuGveKL/+pwv+gZ7/9NVSTcaGW6EDGsxOEQuIC6PfmtVeM184 7Xkg== X-Received: by 10.98.12.67 with SMTP id u64mr96172709pfi.31.1451504977412; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2sm91826100pfl.56.2015.12.30.11.49.36 (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-From: "John Wiegley" Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id D396311F63CC2; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:49:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83vb7fbuw3.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:26:20 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Lars Ingebrigtsen , Paul Eggert X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22e 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:197196 Archived-At: >>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: > Frankly, I don't see how that would be needed, in the simple workflow we use > around here. You know, I think now you may be right, as much as I love technology. I just did a plain "git merge emacs-25", in the same master branch as yesterday. I was presented with the same 12 merge conflicts; it took all of 1 second to perform that merge; and I would have had to resolve the same conflicts in the same way I did when using git-imerge. Only, it would have proceeded in a fraction of the time. So, no actual win for git-imerge, I was just scared off by what Stefan wrote that I didn't even try the standard method to compare. I'll stick with gitmerge.el and just being more regular, until the complexity becomes a real problem. The main thing now is ChangeLog-2. Paul, would you be willing to help with that one this time? -- John Wiegley GPG fingerprint = 4710 CF98 AF9B 327B B80F http://newartisans.com 60E1 46C4 BD1A 7AC1 4BA2