From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Waitz Subject: Re: [PATCH] submodule merge support Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 18:44:34 +0200 Message-ID: <20070507164434.GK30511@admingilde.org> References: <20070506190224.GG30511@admingilde.org> <20070506220745.GA2439@steel.home> <20070507090346.GI30511@admingilde.org> <463EFFC6.12A1B0A1@eudaptics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dCSxeJc5W8HZXZrD" Cc: Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 07 18:44:44 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hl6KH-0005Lv-Ql for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:44:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934400AbXEGQoh (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 12:44:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934406AbXEGQoh (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 12:44:37 -0400 Received: from mail.admingilde.org ([213.95.32.147]:56057 "EHLO mail.admingilde.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934400AbXEGQog (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2007 12:44:36 -0400 Received: from martin by mail.admingilde.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1) id 1Hl6KA-0004UC-UP; Mon, 07 May 2007 18:44:34 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Fingerprint: B21B 5755 9684 5489 7577 001A 8FF1 1AC5 DFE8 0FB2 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: --dCSxeJc5W8HZXZrD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hoi :) On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 09:02:00AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But if you have multiple merge-bases and you do a recursive merge to=20 > create a new *combined* merge-base, trying to do that for the submodule i= s=20 > just pointless. Ah, now I see your point. And yes, you are right. > So not doing it in the low-level merger is right - because it is simply= =20 > irrelevant at that stage. The low-level merger might as well ignore=20 > submodules. But where to do it then? Do a first run which simply ignores dirlinks and then do another run which looks for all unmerged index entries and processes all dirlinks by merging the submodule? --=20 Martin Waitz --dCSxeJc5W8HZXZrD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGP1dyj/Eaxd/oD7IRAmAYAJsG1SADEFSnc+ydlCrNVBgXZRPnEgCeJwgh 6BSp3vwS8lYyjPyw82HVkcg= =ylrz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dCSxeJc5W8HZXZrD--