From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: A note on merging conflicts.. Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vy7vedntn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20060701150926.GA25800@lsrfire.ath.cx> <20060701180125.GA27550@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Rene Scharfe , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jul 02 02:09:12 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 1FwpWR-0003Uj-LF for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:09:12 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751542AbWGBAJI (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:09:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751444AbWGBAJH (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:09:07 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:52900 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750937AbWGBAJG (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 20:09:06 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6208tnW024196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:08:55 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k6208sFi016848; Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:08:54 -0700 To: Daniel Barkalow In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.81__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.135 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > But that wouldn't actually affect b...c, because we don't actually care > that 'e' is the correct merge-base and 'g' is not, because "b c ^e ^g" is > the same as "b c ^e". You're right - in ths case we don't care about a minimal base commit set at all, it's fine to have too many. I think your patch to do the LEFT/RIGHT thing in git-rev-list internally, instead of generating it as part of the command line, looks fine in theory. Except I think you need to set "revs->limited" for that case too (normally it gets set by "handle_commit()", and only if there is an UNINTERESTING commit: we'd need to add code to set it for LEFT/RIGHT commits too. Linus