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 01:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: <7vejibu69w.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070809120831.19319.qmail@a61af064a2a242.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <7v3aysxvk3.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 10:45:56 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 1IJQ83-000593-E0 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:45:55 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755783AbXHJIpu (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754440AbXHJIpu (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:50 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:46938 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755317AbXHJIpt (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:49 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20070810084548.MBQK23215.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:48 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id a8lo1X0011kojtg0000000; Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:45:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7v3aysxvk3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:11:24 -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: > 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.