From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Baumann Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Teach --no-ff option to 'rebase -i'. Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:03:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20100318080331.GC2557@m62s10.vlinux.de> References: <1268755735-20588-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <1268768556-32176-1-git-send-email-marcnarc@xiplink.com> <20100316214717.GA24880@progeny.tock> <4BA07DC7.9070502@viscovery.net> <20100317155842.GA2557@m62s10.vlinux.de> <4BA0FE59.7020303@viscovery.net> <20100317184210.GB2557@m62s10.vlinux.de> <4BA1D183.3050907@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Marc Branchaud , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 18 09:03:59 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NsAhx-00067t-0f for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:03:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752025Ab0CRIDn (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:03:43 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46921 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751802Ab0CRIDh (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:03:37 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 08:03:34 -0000 Received: from m62s10.vlinux.de (EHLO m62s10.vlinux.de) [83.151.21.204] by mail.gmx.net (mp014) with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 09:03:34 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1252284 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+7s+0irYK7jzLQu+1MaOL4wiKNUT8Px45NCKuzTt wdbo+8eknMcWIS Received: by m62s10.vlinux.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6EBE9D4006; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:03:31 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4BA1D183.3050907@viscovery.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.59999999999999998 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:08:51AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Peter Baumann schrieb: > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:07:53PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >> Peter Baumann schrieb: > >>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 07:59:19AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >>>> If I were to re-merge topic into master a second time after this > >>>> situation, I would install a temporary graft that removes the second > >>>> parent of M and repeat the merge. After the graft is removed, the history > >>>> would look like this: > >>>> > >>>> B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] > >>>> / \ \ > >>>> A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] > >>>> > >>>> Are there any downsides? I don't know - I haven't thought it through. > >>>> > >>> Might be. If there is any branch starting anywhere in between M and U > >>> which also needs to merge [topic] will also cause you headaches :-) > >>> > >>> B --- C --- D --------------. [topic] > >>> / \ \ > >>> A --- ... --- M ... --- U ... N [master] > >>> \ > >>> x --- y [side_branch wich needs to merge topic] > >> ?? I don't follow you. The side branch already contains the topic. What do > >> you want to merge? > >> > > > > Won't it loose the revert 'U' after merging side_branch back to master? > > > > Ah. Looking at the picture more closely, I could answer myself and say it would > > only cause a huge mergeconflict, won't it?. > > No. N and the merge-base of N and y are identical (wrt changes introduced > by B,C,D). At least this part will not cause any conflicts. > You are right. How could I missed that. Thanks for the clarification. -- Peter