しらいしななこ  <nanako3@lavabit.com> writes:

quoted text
> Quoting Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>:
>
>> "David Jeske" <jeske@willowmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> If I understand it right (and that's a BIG if), it's the same as doing a merge
>>> of C into G where every individual commit in the C-line is individually
>>> committed into the new C' line.
>>>
>>> ...........-------------A---B---C
>>> ........../            /   /   /
>>> ........./        /---A'--B'--C'  topic
>>> ......../        /
>>> ....D---E---F---G - master
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) Is the above model a valid explanation?
>>
>> I would presume that the resulting trees A' in the second picture and in
>> the first picture would be the same, so are B' and C'.  But that is only
>> true when commits between A and C do not have any duplicate with the
>> development that happened between E and G.
>
> Sorry, but I think you are wrong, Junio.
> ...
> I agree that your explanation why A is not recorded as a parent of A' is
> right for the philosophical reason (the purpose of rebasing to create A'
> is so that you do not have to record them).  But from the point-of-view
> of correctness of commit history, I think A must not be recorded as a
> parent of A', either.

All correct.  Sorry about the confusion.
--
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