From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: theirs/ours was Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a new test for using a custom merge strategy Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:13 -0400 Message-ID: <20080729124213.GB12069@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20080728185604.GA26322@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20080728192651.GA26677@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vsktto78y.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080729050218.GD26997@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , sverre@rabbelier.nl, Git Mailinglist , Miklos Vajna To: Mike Ralphson X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 29 14:43:39 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 1KNoXz-0003fu-3p for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:43:23 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752258AbYG2MmQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752231AbYG2MmQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:16 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:1667 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752083AbYG2MmP (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 8822 invoked by uid 111); 29 Jul 2008 12:42:14 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.32) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:14 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:42:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:36:32AM +0100, Mike Ralphson wrote: > > I just didn't want history thrown away for two reasons: > > > > - historical interest; some of the commits had counterparts in devel > > that were done differently (because the two branches had diverged), > > but it might later be interesting to see how and why the stable > > changes were done (e.g., if a similar situation arose) > > > > - this project did not rebase, favoring the simplicity of "git pull" > > over clean history. > > > > Bear in mind that this project was not very big. I think devel had ~20 > > commits, and stable had about ~5. So it was easy to get such confidence. > > Is there any reason you couldn't have reverted the stable commits in > preparation for the merge from devel? No, there is no technical reason. I think that is a perfectly valid way of accomplishing the same goal (as is switching to the "kept" branch and using "-s ours"). It's just that we had a particular mental model, and the simplest way of translating that model into a git history graph was as I described. Again, I don't think this is a common problem, and I have certainly not been aching for "-s theirs". The question was whether such a thing might be useful, and I think it is, if only because it most directly matches how a user might be thinking of the problem; for other users, or other similar situations, one of the other methods might make more sense. To me, seeing a commit that joins two histories with a comment saying "these two branches are now becoming the same, but we don't care about what happened down this ancestry chain because of X" most directly models what happened (in my case). -Peff