hI, On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:I deleted the "only", but not the "not" in front of it. Should have read my mail before sending... Sorry. It affects in which order the merge bases are merged. I remember that I made a case for the oldest merge base to go first. If two of them (or all three!) have the same timestamp, I _think_ they are ordered by SHA1... Now, the problem here is that two of the merge bases have a common merge base, but the third has a completely different root. So, depending on which merge base goes first, the add/add conflict can remove the file from the index early, in which case the next merge does not find a stage 1. *beams* Gee, thanks! Ciao, Dscho - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
git: | |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Eric W. Biederman | [PATCH] macvlan: Support creating macvlans from macvlans |
