Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:54:44 +0200:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:21:16AM -0700, Paul Burba wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:05:11PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > >> So while I think your fixes should be backported to 1.7.1 ASAP,
> > >> I don't think the status quo is acceptable. How do we want to move
> > >> forward?
> > >>
> > >> For reference, here's the error message I'm getting:
> > Hi Stefan,
> > Yes, the error message is rather long. But as I've already said, this
> > reintegrate merge is a complete and total abuse of the reintegrate
> > feature. I'm not sure we can save every user from themselves if they
> > insist on doing strange things....but I've already made that point,
> > and it appears I'm in the minority, so I wont belabor it any further
> > :-)
> I don't agree with this. I wouldn't call it "abuse" of this feature.
> The user is clearly intending to reintegrate the branch. But one of the
> preconditions for reintegration isn't met. Much like trying to merge into
> a mixed-revision working copy, or a working copy with local modifications.
> Would you also call that "abuse"? I doubt that :)
The user simply recalled that 'merge --reintegrate' was the invocation
for folding feature branches back into their parent. (And when I say
"recalled", I mean "read it off a Subversion Cheatsheet taped to his
> The user error is definitely not on purpose, and I don't see a point
> in punishing users for this error by stealing 3 or more minutes of
> their time gathering information of little value to them.
> Note that the user performing the reintegrate merge is not necessarily
> the same person who performed the cherry-picking merge which makes
> --reintegrate impossible. They might simply be unaware of what happened.
Received on 2011-10-12 12:24:39 CEST