From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: Following renames Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:31:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20060326223154.GU18185@pasky.or.cz> References: <20060326014946.GB18185@pasky.or.cz> <44264426.8010608@michonline.com> <20060326014946.GB18185@pasky.or.cz> <20060326100717.GD18185@pasky.or.cz> <20060326191445.GQ18185@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ryan Anderson , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Mar 27 00:31:53 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 1FNdm2-0003wB-PS for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:31:51 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932085AbWCZWbs (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:31:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932097AbWCZWbs (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:31:48 -0500 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:2434 "EHLO machine.or.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085AbWCZWbr (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Mar 2006 17:31:47 -0500 Received: (qmail 14411 invoked by uid 2001); 27 Mar 2006 00:31:54 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-message-flag: Outlook : A program to spread viri, but it can do mail too. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Dear diary, on Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 12:22:04AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds said that... > So commit "6" is uninteresting, and commit "5" will never even be > looked at, since we decided that the history of "d" comes from the > first parent with the same contents. And this is the thing I have a problem with - this does not make much sense to me, why can't we just follow all parents instead of arbitrarily choosing one of them? > which is correct (now, there are other histories _too_ that get us to the > same point, but the one you found this way was _a_ history). Ok, in that case I want the _full_ history. :-) > No, it's the expected output just because you expected merges to always > show up. Merges get ignored if any of the parents have the same content > already. Eek. Can I avoid that? What was the reason for choosing this behavior? -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think I have forgotten this before.