From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Merge with git-pasky II. Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:36:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20050415093649.GA28077@elte.hu> References: <7vfyxtsurd.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v64ypsqev.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vvf6pr4oq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20050414121624.GZ25711@pasky.ji.cz> <7vll7lqlbg.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1113556448.12012.269.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Junio C Hamano , Petr Baudis , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 15 11:34:20 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMND2-0004Rl-Ax for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:33:56 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261781AbVDOJhD (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:37:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261782AbVDOJhD (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:37:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:48543 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261781AbVDOJg6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:36:58 -0400 Received: from chiara.elte.hu (chiara.elte.hu [157.181.150.200]) by mx1.elte.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADB6A31FE7B; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:36:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by chiara.elte.hu (Postfix, from userid 17806) id B02801FC2; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:36:52 +0200 (CEST) To: David Woodhouse Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1113556448.12012.269.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org * David Woodhouse wrote: > Consider a simple repository which contains two files A and B. We > start off with the first version of each ('A1B1'), and the owner of > each file takes a branch and modifies their own file. There is > cross-pulling between the two, and then each modifies the _other's_ > file as well as their own... > > (A1B2)--(A2B2)--(A2'B3) > / \ / \ > / \ / \ > (A1B1) X (...) > \ / \ / > \ / \ / > (A2B1)--(A2B2)--(A3B2') > > Now, we're trying to merge the two branches. It appears that the most > useful common ancestor to use for a three-way merge of file A is the > version from tree 'A2B1', while the most useful common ancestor for > merging file B is that in 'A1B2'. do such cases occur frequently? In the kernel at least it's not too typical. Would it be a problem to go for the simple solution of using (A1B1) as the common ancestor (based on the tree graph), and then to do a 3-way merge of all changes from that point on? Ingo