Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@...>
Cc: <git@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 10:05 pm

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Well, mainly because the data structures supported the notion naturally.

Once you have 0, 1 or 2 parents, the logical progression is "many". 


Actually, it's trivial to convert to other SCM's, although I guess the 
conversion tools haven't really tried. You can always turn it into a 
series of multiple merges. Yes, you lose information, but it's not like 
you lose a huge amount.

As to how useful it is.. We don't have a lot of them in the kernel, but I 
do have to say that the ones we have generally tend to make perfect sense. 

To see just octopus merges, do

	git rev-list --parents HEAD |
		grep '.* .* .* ' |
		git diff-tree --stdin --pretty --always -S |
		less -S

but a couple of them are actually fake (same parent listed twice), due to 
a confluence of (a) historically bad "git merge" semantics and (b) a bug 
that made it not notice. In fact, that bug seems to have re-appeared, now 
that I look at it!

Junio: see kernel commits a733a5da9 and 52b097fff89, done as lately as 
February of this year. We shouldn't allow that kind of thing, and in git 
we have commits b389237ae and 6ea23343ce that were both about those kinds 
of mis-uses.

That said, most of those octopus merges look fine and actually give a 
nicer view of history. Of course, Len has been known to over-do it a bit ;)

		Linus
--
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
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Jakub Narebski, (Mon Jun 2, 9:14 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Jakub Narebski, (Tue Jun 3, 7:27 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Daniel Villeneuve, (Mon Jun 2, 10:16 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 2, 10:05 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Jakub Narebski, (Tue Jun 3, 3:32 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jun 3, 3:54 pm)
Re: Commit annotations (was:: Octopus merge: unique (?) to g..., Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jun 3, 4:33 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 3:53 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 12:29 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Jakub Narebski, (Tue Jun 3, 2:39 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 3:11 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jun 2, 11:56 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Linus Torvalds, (Tue Jun 3, 10:40 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 8:33 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 1:17 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 3:30 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 6:08 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 9:02 pm)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jun 3, 1:28 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jun 3, 1:42 am)
Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful?, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jun 3, 4:31 am)