Re: [IRC/patches] Failed octopus merge does not clean up

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Jakub Narebski wrote:
> > Junio C Hamano wrote:

>>>  (1) while it merges other heads one-by-one, it gets conflicts on an
>>>      earlier one, before it even attempts to merge all of them.  Recording
>>>      the heads that it so far attempted to merge in MERGE_HEAD is wrong
>>>      (the result won't be an Octopus the end user wanted to carete), and
>>>      recording all the heads the user gave in MERGE_HEAD is even more
>>>      wrong (it hasn't even looked at the later heads yet, so there is no
>>>      way for the index or work tree to contain anything from them).
>>>
>>>      The above is hitting this case.
[...] 
 
>> BTW. does it mean that "git merge a b" might be not the same as
>> "git merge b a"?
>> 
> 
> No. Git merges all the sub-things together and then merges the result
> of that jumble into the branch you're on.
> 
> Someone might have to correct me on that, but that's as far as I've
> understood it.

>From what I understand from above explanation, and from thread on git
mailing list about better implementation of and documenting finding
merge bases for multiple heads, I think octopus merge is done by merging
[reduced] heads one by one into given branch.

This means that "git merge a b" does internally "git merge a; git merge b"
as I understand it.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland