[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FB956F4.6050704@banquise.net>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 22:41:24 +0200
From: Simon Marechal <simon@...quise.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: file synchronization backend for MJohn
On 05/20/2012 10:14 PM, Aleksey Cherepanov wrote:
> Looking deeply in git I found that the conflict could be easily fixed:
> git inserts lines '<<<<<<< HEAD', '=======' and '>>>>>>> <commit_id>'
> into file, these lines could be easily replaced by one sed call, also
> git inserts new lines from file that are ok as is. Though I think it
> is rather a hack but it could work and it may be hard to do it better.
> So I will try to use it first.
Automatically resolving conflicts is exactly something you should not
do. Why not do it how it should be done ? When you can't push because
somebody else did just before you did, you can :
- force push, destroying everything that was pushed by others and just
be obnoxious, or
- pull, hope for an automatic resolution and push the merge, or
- fetch, rebase your patch and push.
I like the git approach because you can explain the reason of every
change in the commit log and link every change to someone. It helps a
lot for after action report.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
