* [Fwd: Re: git merge vs git commit]
@ 2008-09-09 17:58 Gustaf Hendeby
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Gustaf Hendeby @ 2008-09-09 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Git Mailing List; +Cc: Junio C Hamano
Sorry for the dup Junio, once again hit the wrong button when answering...
/Gustaf
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: git merge vs git commit
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:56:20 +0200
From: Gustaf Hendeby <hendeby@isy.liu.se>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
References: <20080909165236.GA8850@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
<7vhc8p6x59.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 2008-09-09 19:34, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
>> If there aren't any conflicts, you get a nice clean merge, resulting in:
>> ...
>> However, if you have a conflict that needs resolving, you fix it up as
>> ...
>> instead - an additional reference from commit 'K' back to commit 'A'
>> which isn't present in the clean merge case.
>>
>> Is this intentional, or is it a bug?
>
> I think some changes went into 1.6.0 around this area to (r)eject parents
> that are redundant. What happens when you use more recent git with the
> same example?
I get the same result with current next. Is this the expected result
with this work, or an unwanted side effect?
/Gustaf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2008-09-09 17:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-09-09 17:58 [Fwd: Re: git merge vs git commit] Gustaf Hendeby
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).