From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] Teach --no-ff option to 'rebase -i'. Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:08:51 +0100 Message-ID: <4BA1D183.3050907@viscovery.net> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Marc Branchaud , git@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Baumann X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 18 08:09:01 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 1Ns9qn-0000iI-Hk for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:09:01 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751635Ab0CRHI4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:08:56 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:5056 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750922Ab0CRHIz (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:08:55 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ns9qe-0006tf-6C; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:08:52 +0100 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id E078C1660F; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:08:51 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: <20100317184210.GB2557@m62s10.vlinux.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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. -- Hannes