From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] git-merge: do up-to-date check also for strategies ours, subtree. Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:51:54 -0700 Message-ID: <7vabszu5zp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070809120831.19319.qmail@a61af064a2a242.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <7v3aysxvk3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vejibu69w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Gerrit Pape X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Aug 10 10:52:01 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IJQDv-0007Fb-Qq for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:52:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755470AbXHJIv4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:51:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751947AbXHJIv4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:51:56 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44]:40585 "EHLO fed1rmmtao102.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751397AbXHJIvz (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:51:55 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070810085155.WBLM7193.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:51:55 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id a8ru1X0021kojtg0000000; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:51:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7vejibu69w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Fri, 10 Aug 2007 01:45:47 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Right now I do not have time to dig mailing list archive around >> mid March 2006, and I do not recall the requestor's original >> rationale, but I have a vague recollection that we added this >> "no fast-forward check" specifically in response to a user >> request. > > I do not think of a valid reason not to apply your patch. We > wanted to avoid the trivial-merge codepath, but that is not a > valid reason to record a fast forward situation as a merge of > any kind. Gaah. I take it back. At least, subtree _MUST_ not honor fast-forward blindly. git-gui.git project is merged into git.git with that strategy, but if I pull from Shawn once, and then he has more updates while I do not have anything on my tree, it will be a fast-forward. I should not be setting the git.git tree to that of git-gui.git in such a case.