From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Mixing cherry-pick and merge Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:22:32 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <46D56123.4030307@objectxp.com> <20070829131439.GA31212@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Michel Marti , Git Mailing List To: Karl =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hasselstr=F6m?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 29 15:22:51 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IQNVH-0005jG-Ga for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:22:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757192AbXH2NWh (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:22:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756896AbXH2NWg (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:22:36 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:54534 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757063AbXH2NWg (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:22:36 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2007 13:22:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp044) with SMTP; 29 Aug 2007 15:22:34 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18nZAwhQaEnsLQJh2lSndvibczSF05oesPRkA+PoH zPRpEA5IhY3Hz1 X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20070829131439.GA31212@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Karl Hasselstr?m wrote: > On 2007-08-29 14:05:55 +0200, Michel Marti wrote: > > > I just merged from a branch from which I previously cherry-picked some > > commits and now the log contains the already cherry-picked commits > > twice (which is rather confusing). Is this a bug or a feature? > > It's an inevitable consequence of git's design. When you cherry-pick a > commit, you create a (maybe slightly modified) copy of it with different > ancestry. If you then merge a branch that contains the original commit, > you will get both the original and the copy as ancestors of your new > merge commit. I guess that people are not even aware that they can rebase with Git. Sounds like a perfect use case to me. Ciao, Dscho