From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: 'cherry' does not cope well with merges from upstream Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:52:14 -0700 Message-ID: <7vbpaq3glt.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1278012954-sup-3724@pimlott.net> <20100701210919.GA4283@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Andrew Pimlott , git , =?utf-8?B?RnLDqWTDqXJpYyBCcmnDqHJl?= , Michael J Gruber , Jeff King , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Steinbrink To: Jonathan Nieder X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jul 02 01:52:49 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 1OUTYi-0000Qa-8A for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 01:52:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752979Ab0GAXwi convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:52:38 -0400 Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:50090 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751811Ab0GAXwh convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:52:37 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F99DC0E89; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:52:32 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=6/1L8scddhHG 1IlTZChNOcIfBj0=; b=BRnqYw9gHxOoNS1JmHkRaXfJtD3QsUp28tKBmiqdpiWS zr+9ITXeuzgsvM5lNZs5Qflh7jaL5PWxj5OwjeyOsiT/ysoBhYSRwnJhuDIEvenp /E5GSEDuKAjI7/vKxUBVikHatbPtB8ZQqO04IZvSH5pHTgSrhmGuheJ3WjJIv1s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=to:cc:subject :references:from:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=mcZGIw ZqHXu7LGSB+ym961bY6bfvKsT9n6Lf6qgcOpJdBSoh1jbPT7XMPR07KSd6OplcoG hs2WUedxj52wwyRcFaMyoqhAlQZV4x+DJDO/QiitbmS3WGQIUHkforMKqqeimz7D l6vveEuT33VmC8LlE6EkKnXZOGlnrlgKUTMug= Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB80C0E85; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:52:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [69.181.135.33]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8490C0E7C; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 19:52:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20100701210919.GA4283@burratino> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Thu\, 1 Jul 2010 16\:09\:19 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B2B90378-856B-11DF-A026-9056EE7EF46B-77302942!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jonathan Nieder writes: > Example: > > o---o---F---X'---G---U [upstream] > \ \ > X----Y---M---T [topic] > > Suppose the author of the =E2=80=98topic=E2=80=99 branch starts from = upstream > commit F and makes a few changes. One is applied upstream, and > additionally there is some other useful upstream change, so he > performs a merge to include the upstream updates into topic. > The expected output from =E2=80=98cherry=E2=80=99 is: > > + T > + Y > - X > > Consider the author of a different branch, also called =E2=80=98topic= =E2=80=99, but > this one starts from commit G. Some infrastructure from an existing=20 > branch is needed, so first she merges that. Then she adds her own > commit. Sorry, but it is unclear to me what kind of history you have in mind at this point. What "existing branch" are you talking about? Presumably = it is not the [topic] in an earlier example, nor it is [upstream] right? o---o---o---o----G-------.---U [upstream] \ \=20 X---Y---M---T Something like this? > The expected output from =E2=80=98cherry=E2=80=99 is: > > + T > + Y > + X > > since none of the new commits have been applied upstream since > the fork point. > > =E2=80=98cherry=E2=80=99 cannot distinguish between these two cases, = in part because > it does not distinguish between parents in a merge commit. Now you completely lost me. I guess the biggest reason is you only tal= k about "the expected output" without talking about "what it actually gives". Hence it is unclear what the significant difference "between these two cases" you are trying to stress here. > Thoughts? Improvements? I think the actual patch text has the same problem. You say "these commits" without saying which ones they are; perhaps saing "the commits represented by asterisks in the picture" or something may help, but I dunno.