Re: question about a merge result

[Michael Gaber <Michael.Gaber@gmx.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

Francis Moreau schrieb:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm a little bit confused about a merge I have done and the result
> suprised me. Thinking about it I'm still not convinced what should be
> the result.
> 
> Here's the use case:
> 
> $ mkdir test-git && cd test-git
> $ date > A
> $ date > B
> $ git init
> $ git add .
> $ git commit -m "Init"
> 
> So far I just created a repo with 2 files A and B
> 
> $ git branch b1
> $ git rm B
> $ git commit -m "remove B"
> 
> Now I created a branch 'b1' and remove B file in master branch
> 
> $ git checkout b1
> $ git rm B
> $ git commit -m "remove B"
> $ git revert HEAD
> 
> Now on 'b1' I did the same as master but I thought that removing B was
> a bad idea so I revert the previous commit
> 
> $ git checkout master
> $ git pull . b1
> $ ls B
> ls: cannot access B: No such file or directory
> 
> So merging 'b1' into master removed the B file even if in branch 'b1'
> I restored it.
> 
> Could anybody explain me why this is the correct behaviour and why not
> file 'B' is not restored as it was done in branch 'b1' ?
> 
> thanks

well, I'd say the thing is, that in b1 there is no change at all to the
tree anymore, so when applied to master (without B) there is no b restored

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3643 bytes --]