Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Feb 2017 10:45:32 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 57/89] sched/headers: Split <linux/sched/task_stack> out of <linux/sched.h> |
| |
* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Ingo, > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: > >> > Wondering why Git allowed me to be so stupid with those leftover merge markers. > >> > Git usually doesn't even allow me to commit them so I have these tuned out as a > >> > possibility. This was just a regular git rebase -i flow, to back-merge fixes and > >> > reorder/squash patches - nothing fancy that I remember - only the occasional > >> > --onto option. I'm using Git 2.7.4. > >> > >> Git complains about the merge conflicts, and refuses to commit the result > >> as long as you haven't resolved them, but it will happily commit everything > >> you add using "git add -u", incl. merge markers. > > > > Hm, it should really force that via 'git add -f' or such. The merge markers are > > _very_ infrequent as naturally occuring source code lines even on a per line basis > > - and especially the combination of them should be exceedingly unique. > > They were very infrequent, until we switched to RST for documentation, > causing false positives when searching for "^[<=>].*" in vim...
But the exact merge conflict pattern is generated by Git, and it's far more specific than the "^[<=>].*" pattern, right?
So it should be possible to disambiguate?
> > I frequently use: > > > > git add $(git ls-files -m) > > That's identical to "git add -u", right?
Indeed, I'm bad at remembering one letter shortcuts: why is what is '-m' in git-ls-files called '-u' in git-add? ;-)
BTW., would 'git add -u' have prevented my mistake?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |