From b69f354a8715526af00751d5ebc0d022c1a368b3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:43:10 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- .../comment_4_497bbe4e351a66731c920ca5a2048c92._comment | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/merge-annex-branches__61__false_-_automate_and_extend/comment_4_497bbe4e351a66731c920ca5a2048c92._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/merge-annex-branches__61__false_-_automate_and_extend/comment_4_497bbe4e351a66731c920ca5a2048c92._comment b/doc/bugs/merge-annex-branches__61__false_-_automate_and_extend/comment_4_497bbe4e351a66731c920ca5a2048c92._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..dc1c7a86e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/merge-annex-branches__61__false_-_automate_and_extend/comment_4_497bbe4e351a66731c920ca5a2048c92._comment @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 4""" + date="2021-12-09T18:38:54Z" + content=""" +Yes, it seems like annex.merge-annex-branches=false should prevent it +looking at unmerged sibling branches. Since it would be effectively +doing an in-memory merge. +"""]]