From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: q: faster way to integrate/merge lots of topic branches? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:14:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20080723141456.GA13556@elte.hu> References: <20080723130518.GA17462@elte.hu> <20080723174140.b749191a.vsu@altlinux.ru> <20080723140959.GB9537@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Sergey Vlasov X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 23 16:16:30 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KLf8T-0000it-5o for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:16:09 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752932AbYGWOPK (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:15:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752949AbYGWOPJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:15:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:50904 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752909AbYGWOPI (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:15:08 -0400 Received: from elvis.elte.hu ([157.181.1.14]) by mx2.mail.elte.hu with esmtp (Exim) id 1KLf7K-0000Vg-TY from ; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:15:07 +0200 Received: by elvis.elte.hu (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 21A693E21AB; Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080723140959.GB9537@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Received-SPF: neutral (mx2: 157.181.1.14 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of elte.hu) client-ip=157.181.1.14; envelope-from=mingo@elte.hu; helo=elvis.elte.hu; X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.1 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_05 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.1 BAYES_05 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 1 to 5% [score: 0.0342] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: * Ingo Molnar wrote: > Even assuming that the filesystem is sane, is my merge-cache > implementation semantically equivalent to a git-merge? One detail is > that i suspect it is not equivalent in the git-merge --no-ff case. > (but that is a not too interesting non-default case anyway) actually, since --no-ff creates a merge commit and thus propagates the head sha1, this should work fine as well. (besides the small detail that my script has $1 hardcoded so parameters are not properly passed onto.) Ingo