From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: Octopus merge: unique (?) to git, but is it useful? Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:29:47 -0700 Message-ID: <7vy75n3zus.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <200806030314.03252.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 03 06:30:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K3OAa-0005Tv-SE for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 06:30:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751279AbYFCE34 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:29:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751263AbYFCE34 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:29:56 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:56927 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbYFCE34 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:29:56 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7BB34C2; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0E4E34C1; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 00:29:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:05:03 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: B6F85F02-3125-11DD-845A-F9737025C2AA-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds writes: > Actually, it's trivial to convert to other SCM's, although I guess the > conversion tools haven't really tried. You can always turn it into a > series of multiple merges. Yes, you lose information, but it's not like > you lose a huge amount. One thing to worry about is what tree object you would give to each of these "artificially split" merge commits, though.