From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [Discussion] cherry-picking a merge Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:40:22 -0800 Message-ID: <7vy7cz4dbt.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v3av86iqa.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20071115081648.GK14735@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Nov 15 18:41:24 2007 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 1IsiiS-0005CK-4F for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:41:24 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759529AbXKORkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:40:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758376AbXKORkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:40:49 -0500 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]:38640 "EHLO sceptre.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758343AbXKORks (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:40:48 -0500 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0944E2FB; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:41:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B25195FBF; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:41:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20071115081648.GK14735@spearce.org> (Shawn O. Pearce's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:16:49 -0500") 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: "Shawn O. Pearce" writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> When you think about it, as long as the topological relationship >> between A and B is very similar to that of C and B (iow, >> "merge-base A B" and "merge-base C B" are the same), the effect >> should be the same as a real merge between B and C, shouldn't it? >> >> ---o---o---C---A---M >> \ \ / >> o---o---\---B >> \ \ >> `---X >> >> I am wondering if it makes sense to record the result of >> "cherry-pick -m" as a real merge between the current HEAD and >> all the other parents of the cherry-picked merge except the one >> that is named with the . > > Yes. Actually, this turns to be a trick question ;-) If there was an accidental clean merge between A and B, and a part of the duplicated same changes in the accidental clean merge sits between C and A, replaying the difference from A to M on top of C would not yield the same result as merging B into C.