Mixing cherry-pick and merge

Mixing cherry-pick and merge

[Michel Marti]

I just merged from a branch from which I previously cherry-picked some commits and now the
log contains the already cherry-picked commits twice (which is rather confusing). Is this
a bug or a feature?

Steps to reproduce:

mkdir foo && cd foo
git init
echo 123 >file
git add file
git commit -m "init"
git checkout -b branch
echo 321 >file
git commit -a -m "commit from branch"
=> Created commit 531fa08: commit from branch
git checkout master
git cherry-pick 531fa08
git merge branch
git-log --pretty=oneline
e5e8011c1ab7c9b8509604d27327b29fd1f7003a Merge branch 'branch'
ad91b39e433228809eb3cd6281cb686bf4871da0 commit from branch
531fa081d93249288efb70e9e8204e4ed9d70099 commit from branch
bc0a5bca29620eccd5b75e473d102317d8ce29f7 init

Re: Mixing cherry-pick and merge

[Karl Hasselström]

On 2007-08-29 14:05:55 +0200, Michel Marti wrote:

> I just merged from a branch from which I previously cherry-picked
> some commits and now the log contains the already cherry-picked
> commits twice (which is rather confusing). Is this a bug or a
> feature?

It's an inevitable consequence of git's design. When you cherry-pick a
commit, you create a (maybe slightly modified) copy of it with
different ancestry. If you then merge a branch that contains the
original commit, you will get both the original and the copy as
ancestors of your new merge commit.

-- 
Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com
      www.treskal.com/kalle

Re: Mixing cherry-pick and merge

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Karl Hasselstr?m wrote:

> On 2007-08-29 14:05:55 +0200, Michel Marti wrote:
> 
> > I just merged from a branch from which I previously cherry-picked some 
> > commits and now the log contains the already cherry-picked commits 
> > twice (which is rather confusing). Is this a bug or a feature?
> 
> It's an inevitable consequence of git's design. When you cherry-pick a 
> commit, you create a (maybe slightly modified) copy of it with different 
> ancestry. If you then merge a branch that contains the original commit, 
> you will get both the original and the copy as ancestors of your new 
> merge commit.

I guess that people are not even aware that they can rebase with Git.  
Sounds like a perfect use case to me.

Ciao,
Dscho