From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: rebasing merges Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:09:23 +0200 Message-ID: <48D88813.9060400@viscovery.net> References: <20080922155749.c8070681.stephen@exigencecorp.com> <20080922231927.ef18f420.stephen@exigencecorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Haberman X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 23 08:10:42 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ki16Z-0006T2-Ne for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:10:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752070AbYIWGJ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:09:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752000AbYIWGJ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:09:27 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso02.liwest.at ([212.33.55.13]:37108 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751934AbYIWGJ0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:09:26 -0400 Received: from cm56-163-160.liwest.at ([86.56.163.160] helo=linz.eudaptics.com) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.66) (envelope-from ) id 1Ki15Q-000852-0K; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:09:24 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.42]) by linz.eudaptics.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C285AFCC; Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:09:23 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) In-Reply-To: <20080922231927.ef18f420.stephen@exigencecorp.com> X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Spam-Report: ALL_TRUSTED=-1.8, BAYES_99=3.5 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Stephen Haberman schrieb: > I noticed the t3400.sh test explicitly tests for the flattening > behavior, but I can't tell if that is because it's testing for > explicitly desired behavior or if the "linear-izing" is something > that is up for debate (or a command line/config option). This is the expected behavior and not up for debate. Consider this use-case, for example: You keep a private patch or two on top of upstream, and you also regularly pull from upstream. You get this history: ---o--o--o--o--o--o <-- origin \ \ \ A--B--M--------N <-- master A and B are the private patches. From time to time you want to update them if they get out of date, which is indicated by merge conflicts in the merges M and N. Then you want this result: ---o--o--o--o--o--o <-- origin \ A'--B' <-- master i.e. linearized history without merges. -- Hannes