3 ms·
I'd be interested to hear your complaints with git-merge-recursive. Unless your common ancestor is multiple ancestors (eg, criss-cross merges), which I can't i
by ethomson 13y ago
I'd be interested to hear your complaints with git-merge-recursive. Unless your common ancestor is multiple ancestors (eg, criss-cross merges), which I can't imagine is really commmon, it shouldn't differ appreciably from git-merge-resolve except that it can do rename detection.
- qznc 13y agoMy guess would be the default "fast-forward merge when possible". In this case there is no merge commit. When more is committed on top, you can see no trace of a merge anymore.
- jheriko 13y agomy complaint is exactly the comment i made. 'works most of the time in one situation' is not working. its a bit magical - i've only seen it do something insane once and i can't remember the specifics, but it introduced me to the concept and made me want to turn it off. i really don't mind conflicts. safety over rushing every time...