From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Question on empty commit Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:48:56 -0800 Message-ID: <7vmzhx7ref.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060114021800.4688.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 15 10:49:08 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ey4VT-0007rR-DP for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 10:49:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751885AbWAOJs7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:48:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751886AbWAOJs6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:48:58 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29]:58778 "EHLO fed1rmmtao10.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751885AbWAOJs6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:48:58 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.4.9.127]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060115094740.OROB20441.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>; Sun, 15 Jan 2006 04:47:40 -0500 To: ltuikov@yahoo.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Luben Tuikov writes: > Now the last merge introduced an empty commit, since > tree A and tree B had been in sync (only local and > remote trunk had been out of sync). While it was expected > that no commit would be introduced since they were in sync. > > Was the empty commit correct behavior? I do not quite follow you, but immediately before the "empty commit" (I presume you mean the last "git merge" that merges treeA head in treeB), you say "the treeA and treeB had been in sync". What do you exactly mean? The tree object in the head commits in treeA branch and treeB branch were identical? If that is the case, the commit being empty is the correct behaviour, because there is no difference in the set of files introduced by that commit. And the commit being made is also the correct behaviour, because those two branches have different development history, and the commit is what binds them together.