Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
quoted text
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >             o---...o---B---A
> >            /                \ (wrong)
> >        ---o---o---...o---X---A'
[...]
quoted text
> >To put it another way, having the parent link from A' to A is a statement
> >that A' is a superset of A.  Because A contains B, you are claiming A'
> >also contains B, which is not the case in your cherry-picked history.
>=20
> Which existing git command actually misbehaves because it makes the
> above assumption?

Most importantly: merge.

If you later merge the top branch into the bottom one, the merge-base
is now A.  So any such merge, that under normal circumstances would
have integrated B (which as Junio said could be a very important fix!)
would not do so in your version.

But other things fail too: take the '..' and '...' way of specifying
revisions (because they consider B as "on the bottom branch" with that
extra parent relationship).

=2D Thomas

=2D-=20
Thomas Rast
trast@student.ethz.ch