From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: new behaviour in git merge Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:15:53 -0500 Message-ID: <20110224081553.GD25595@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20110224143353.ddaa316a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Feb 24 09:15:57 2011 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 1PsWMe-0008Nl-Pw for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:15:57 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755269Ab1BXIPw (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:15:52 -0500 Received: from xen6.gtisc.gatech.edu ([143.215.130.70]:50810 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755217Ab1BXIPv (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:15:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 20758 invoked by uid 111); 24 Feb 2011 08:15:50 -0000 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (99.108.226.0) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTPA; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 08:15:50 +0000 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:15:53 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110224143353.ddaa316a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 02:33:53PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > I am not sure when this started, but I think git has changed its behaviour > when merging. As you all know, I do a lot of merging of trees for > linux-next each day. Today I noticed that when I merge a tree, sometimes > the timestamps are modified for files that are not modified on one side > of the merge. It is not consistent and it is not all the files that are > modified on the HEAD side (relative to the merge-base). > > [...] > > I am pretty sure that git did not used to do this. Has anyone else seen > this? I am running git version 1.7.4.1 from Debian unstable. I don't think any such change was intentional. I couldn't reproduce with a trivial example. Can you give the commit IDs of the two heads in your example merge? I'd like to try bisecting if I can reproduce the issue. -Peff