From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Live Merging from remote repositories Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:22:39 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfyxtose8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Petr Baudis" , "Junio C Hamano" , "Linus Torvalds" , X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 15 01:19:57 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DMDcY-0005zz-O9 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 15 Apr 2005 01:19:38 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261647AbVDNXW7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:22:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261649AbVDNXW7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:22:59 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao11.cox.net ([68.230.241.28]:32454 "EHLO fed1rmmtao11.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261647AbVDNXWm (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:22:42 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.60.172]) by fed1rmmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050414232239.DEJP22013.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:22:39 -0400 To: "Barry Silverman" In-Reply-To: (Barry Silverman's message of "Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:01:32 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "BS" == Barry Silverman writes: I have not thought about remote issues at all, other than the distribution mechanism vaguely outlined in my previous mail (not cc'ed to git list but I would not mind if you reproduced it here if somebody asked), so I am not qualified to comment on that part of your message. BS> The way Junio has done it, no intermediate trees or commits BS> are used... BS> Is this a bug or a feature? I would call that a feature in that there is no need to look at intermediate state. I also might call that a misfeature in that it may have resulted in a better merge if it looked at intermediate state. I just have this fuzzy feeling that, when doing this merge: A-1 --- A-2 --- A-3 / \ Common Ancestor Merge Result \ / B-1 --- B-2 --- B-3 looking at diff(Common Ancestor, A-1), diff(Common Ancestor, B-1), diff(A-1, A-2), ... might give you richer context than just merging 3-way using Common Ancestor, A-3, and B-3 to derive the Merge Result. It might not. I honestly do not know. BTW, Pasky, the above paragraph is my answer to your question in the other message <20050414202016.GC22699@pasky.ji.cz>: > But one different thing to note here. > > You say "merge these two trees" above (I take it that you mean > "merge these two trees, taking account of this tree as their > common ancestor", so actually you are dealing with three trees), > and I am tending to agree with the notion of merging trees not > commits. However you might get richer context and more sensible > resulting merge if you say "merge these two commits". Since > commit chaining is part of the fundamental git object model you > may as well use it. Pasky> Could you be more particular on the richer context etc?