Git Mailing List Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <>
To: "Adam Johnson via GitGitGadget" <>
Cc:, Elijah Newren <>,
	Adam Johnson <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: merge: improve conflict presentation docs
Date: Fri, 05 May 2023 15:35:57 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqzg6ibe42.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)

"Adam Johnson via GitGitGadget" <> writes:

> From: Adam Johnson <>
> Improvements:
> 1. Remove the sexist example ("Barbie... wants to go shopping")

"Barbie goes shopping" is a pretty common meme.  A random internet
search finds many of them, e.g.

If it is about only Barbie herself, not about any other random girls,
would it still be a "sexist" example?

> 2. Show real merge marker contents, rather than e.g. "yours:sample.txt".

I am a bit torn about this change.  While I can see why we may want
to show sample output that is bit-for-bit-faithful to reality, these
examples are written to teach what each part of the output means,
and comments like "yours:sample.txt" are used instead of the actual
conflict marker comments to be more helpful for illustrative
purposes, and this change goes directly against it.

> 3. Swap yours/theirs terms for source/target.

I am not sure if this change is as an improvement, especially in the
context of "git merge", which you merge their work into your history
[*].  Surely, it *is* possible to rephase what I just said to "you
merge source's work into target's history", but it makes the primary
point of doing a merge less clear.  But others may have different
opinions, so please do not take this as the final rejection on this


* Conflicts during "git rebase" is a different matter.  You
  tentatively put your feet in the shoes of your upstream people,
  whom you can call "them", and replay "your" changes on top of
  "their" work, and a conflict you will see during this process is
  what "they" will see, i.e. while you are resolving such a
  conflict, you are playing the role of your upstream people, and
  the conflict you see is shown from their point of view.  In that
  context, "your" vs "their" may be suboptimal.

  reply	other threads:[~2023-05-05 22:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-05-05 13:58 [PATCH] doc: merge: improve conflict presentation docs Adam Johnson via GitGitGadget
2023-05-05 22:35 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2023-05-07 22:15   ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-06 23:40 ` Elijah Newren
2023-05-07 22:25   ` Felipe Contreras
2023-05-08 15:25   ` Elijah Newren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqzg6ibe42.fsf@gitster.g \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).