From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jay Soffian" Subject: Re: Odd merge behaviour involving reverts Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:18:56 -0500 Message-ID: <76718490812182018x37e3d6fob8d817c0e0b0e293@mail.gmail.com> References: <1229642734.5770.25.camel@rotwang.fnordora.org> <20081219124452.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Nanako Shiraishi" , Alan , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Linus Torvalds" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Dec 19 05:20:17 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 1LDWqW-00071O-1Y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:20:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752178AbYLSES6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:18:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752162AbYLSES6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:18:58 -0500 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.230]:24207 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752124AbYLSES5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:18:57 -0500 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so730987rvb.1 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:18:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=peFY78ica3cqmGOwy/It6JzZZl6kZ805uZttX/zH0NY=; b=J5gf2WrLdE5o/7A25/CNYb9L7ZVbTc7FXo+Xafvg04oNyHsTURoff0eGwd+ayfgjgN iUm1JvXaUayeMjeC8PpcRwWwGx0M77F6YRdqznK7rZLCHM/3nAlznxorMktFiR5fbqws 0g6yHUeRNCYTxhcqHpWS+1KcVNtYOMLCzWmvQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=qFY0XIFvAYpOP0PGLDTxQbnUnQ5FqbRYsZF5XQ3RDAbASjILvsel7aLRCyNol4JTGd lATVKvtArBX1qer72pfyOhYTKJnlDjadrhJYjsVY5LTF4U2wdEQP11cneIkq2ZtUd4y2 paTLaPTRaXUy8U72EThqwY7dnJ6SJQF3tPi4I= Received: by 10.141.50.11 with SMTP id c11mr1369790rvk.28.1229660336901; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:18:56 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.33.20 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:18:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, it's more complex, and no, it's not always going to work (sometimes > the answer is: "oops, I really shouldn't have merged it, because it wasn't > ready yet, and I really need to undo _all_ of the merge"). So then you > really should revert the merge, but when you want to re-do the merge, you > now need to do it by reverting the revert. Instead of reverting the revert, why not rebase the branch which was merged to the point after the revert was done? j.