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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>
Cc: <git@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 11:56 pm

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:


Well, we even allow fast-forwrad to be recorded as a true merge if the
user asks these days.

And the thing is, that "a733a5da9" commit has a smoking-gun evidence that
a nonsense is asked by the committer.

    commit a733a5da97b238e3e3167d3d0aee8fe1e8d04e97
    Merge: 299cfe3... 299cfe3... 9e52797...
    Author:     Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    AuthorDate: Thu Feb 7 03:38:22 2008 -0500
    Commit:     Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
    CommitDate: Thu Feb 7 03:38:22 2008 -0500

        Merge branches 'release' and 'fluff' into release

        Conflicts:

            drivers/acpi/scan.c
            include/linux/acpi.h

        Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>

"Merge branches 'RELEASE' and 'fluff' into RELEASE"?  That happens if you
are _on_ release branch and say "git merge release fluff".

Having said that, I think what is happening is that the final set of
"other parents" is computed inside git-merge out of MERGE_HEAD and that is
usually what is recorded in the resulting merge, but if the merge results
in a conflict with manual resolution, that information is not given to the
final "git commit".  The resulting commit records the parents out of HEAD
and MERGE_HEAD.  I do not think this part has changed from scripted
version of git-commit.
--
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)