From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Wong Subject: Re: git-svn: SVK merge commits can have >2 parents Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:08:16 +0000 Message-ID: <20091129080815.GC24222@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <1259479636-sup-573@utwig> <1259480367-sup-6891@utwig> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Alex Vandiver , git To: Sam Vilain X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Nov 29 09:08:32 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1NEepb-0000yy-1e for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:08:31 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752113AbZK2IIK (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:08:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751964AbZK2IIK (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:08:10 -0500 Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net ([64.71.152.64]:34394 "EHLO dcvr.yhbt.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751017AbZK2IIJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:08:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BA5B1F675; Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:08:16 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1259480367-sup-6891@utwig> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Alex Vandiver wrote: > At Sun Nov 29 02:28:39 -0500 2009, Alex Vandiver wrote: > > While converting a mildly complicated svn repository that was managed > > with SVK, I ran across the following oddness. `svk smerge` can only > > merge between _two_ branches at once -- however, the way that svk > > merge detection works, you can end up with erroneous extra parents > > from long-dead branches. > > Upon a little more inspection, I now understand that the rev-parse > lines in find_extra_svk_parents are attempting to deal with this exact > circumstance -- but they fail to properly sort the merge tickets > first, which leads to this incorrect behavior. Armed with this > understanding, I'm more confident in the attached updated patch. I Hi Alex, Sam, I'll defer to Sam for the Ack, my svk knowledge is limited. Thanks. -- Eric Wong