Re: -s theirs use-case(s) Was: BUG: merge -s theirs is not in effect
Yaroslav Halchenko
Junio C Hamano
See Also
Prev Ref 1 Ref 2 Ref 3 Ref 4 Ref 5 Ref 6
2017-09-27 00:09:30 UTC
Yaroslav Halchenko <> writes:

> and that is where the gotcha comes -- what if "my" changes were already
> published?  then I would like to avoid the rebase, and would -s theirs
> to choose "their" solution in favor of mine and be able to push so
> others could still "fast-forward" to the new state.
> So -- as to me it remains 'symmetric' ;)

I do not necessarily agree.  Once you decide that their history is
the mainline, you'd rather want to treat your line of development as
a side branch and make a merge in that direction, i.e. the first
parent of the resulting merge is a commit on their history and the
second parent is the last bad one of your history.  So you would end
up using "checkout their-history && merge -s ours your-history" to
keep the first-parenthood sensible.

And at that point, use of "-s ours" is no longer a workaround for
lack of "-s theirs".  It is a proper part of the desired semantics,
i.e. from the point of view of the surviving canonical history line,
you want to preserve what it did, nullifying what the other line of
history did.

So I still do not think the above scenario justifies "-s theirs".