From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] Add option to transpose parents of merge commit Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:52:52 -0800 Message-ID: <7vr4ndhdp7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <1354057217-65886-1-git-send-email-draenog@pld-linux.org> <1354057217-65886-4-git-send-email-draenog@pld-linux.org> <50B5B599.3020105@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Kacper Kornet , git@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Schrab To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 28 17:53:27 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Tdkt3-0001gs-RY for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:53:26 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755527Ab2K1QxA (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:53:00 -0500 Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.35]:46700 "EHLO smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754198Ab2K1Qwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:52:55 -0500 Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7A049C69; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:52:54 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ZOtHVDWN19ok8bIJ0Pz6ufp3+ms=; b=iNuGyT gQ1qqtv+sLcCLgXUauIkgPUp+NUC+TgGXUt0yRn1r7reZeW5cmCpWlL8L1wNR6/F vWh/mS31h0l3N1Tg0LqpY1Fz1CWWoor2gGKeGL2oUTF12db8p7rYDir3T3c9ORX9 N9wesR7dW4gPmm1c4E+5Ts/+pYDaAEou5gXhI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=i1D6cwNqJLrvc2CUhfKyOWVvkSA0GlRD 35k8gmRS9xh52DGhozuZrhsfUK04OCdiQxtR477CkvoI+zXPt+e9JVK7+gCrXUDF R0yIqVsDkPpfGhhVxYg/smyN9zNVm50BMbEBdwxViCafyb8LiTXOyUBibEOF/vNx ven9tz0tmOQ= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944219C68; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [98.234.214.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECFF49C66; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:52:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <50B5B599.3020105@viscovery.net> (Johannes Sixt's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:56:25 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0D80835A-397C-11E2-AA6A-C2612E706CDE-77302942!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Sixt writes: > Am 11/28/2012 0:00, schrieb Kacper Kornet: >> When the changes are pushed upstream, and in the meantime someone else >> updated upstream branch git advises to use git pull. This results in >> history: >> >> ---A---B---C-- >> \ / >> D---E > > The commit message will say: > > Merge branch 'master' of /that/remote > > * 'master' of /that/remote: > E > D > >> where B is the local commit. D, E are commits pushed by someone else >> when the developer was working on B. However sometimes the following >> history is preferable: >> >> ---A---D---C'-- >> \ / >> '-B-' > > Better: > > ---A--D--E--C' > \ / > `----B Yup, that topology is what Kacper's workflow wants. Stepping back a bit, however, I am not sure if that is really true. The goal of this topic seems to be to keep one integration branch and always merge *into* that integration branch, never *from* it, but for what purpose? Making the "log --first-parent" express the integration branch as a linear series of progress? If so, I suspect a project with such a policy would dictate that D and E also be on a side branch, i.e. the history would look more like this: D---E / \ --A-------X---C--- \ / `-------B with X being a --no-ff merge of the topic that consists of these two commits. > In this case, the commit message should say... what? Certainly not the > same thing. But I do not see that you changed anything in this regard. True. If the goal is to emulate a merge of B from a side branch into _the_ integration branch, the summary should also emulate the message that would be given when the remote pulled from your current branch.