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

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 3 June 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> One thing to worry about is what tree object you would give to each of
> these "artificially split" merge commits, though.

There shouldn't be, I think, a problem if octopus merge was done using
'octopus' merge strategy, which requires IIRC tree-level (trivial)
merge.  But true, it is a complication, unless we fake history more,
and always use result for octopus merge as a tree.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland