From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Anderson Subject: Re: Removal of "--merge-order"? Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:32:58 -0500 Message-ID: <20060224173258.GA16500@mythryan2.michonline.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Feb 24 18:34:32 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FCgpN-0003Qy-96 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 18:34:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932401AbWBXRdz (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932402AbWBXRdz (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:55 -0500 Received: from mail.autoweb.net ([198.172.237.26]:5764 "EHLO mail.internal.autoweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932401AbWBXRdy (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:54 -0500 Received: from c-68-60-186-73.hsd1.mi.comcast.net ([68.60.186.73] helo=h4x0r5.com) by mail.internal.autoweb.net with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FCgp6-00048w-E6; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:47 -0500 Received: from mythical ([10.254.251.11] ident=Debian-exim) by h4x0r5.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FCgp0-0004Rm-Ca; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:38 -0500 Received: from ryan by mythical with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FCgok-0004Kg-Ub; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:33:22 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-h4x0r5.com-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-h4x0r5.com-MailScanner-From: ryan@michonline.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:23:24AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > > > I'm just a lowly user, but I see people trying to export git > > trees to other SCMs, and they seem to prefer merge-order. > > This is your chance to correct me about: > > (a) how I am wrong; (b) how they are wrong. 8;) > > Well, I didn't even realize anybody at all was using it. I've never seen > any mention of it, and considering how ungodly slow it is, I would have > expected somebody to pipe up about it.. > > I did a google search for "git" and "merge-order", and the only actual use > (as opposed to mention in a man-page) I found in the 20 hits google showed > was an old version of gitk. http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0511/12965.html But topo-order would probably work as well, the default ordering just didn't work correctly in my tests. Certainly not a case that votes *against* removal, just noting an actual user at one point. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere